VIA Rail network developments

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how a private sector partner could make any money (other than on a design-build-operate basis which still means the government still pays 100% of the capital and subsidizes the operating).

It it is going to lure people away from cars/buses/go train then it has to be cheap (which means no return on capital). If it is going to lure people away from airplanes then it has to be fast (meaning huge capital outlay).

The other thing that makes no sense is routing London and Windsor traffic through Kitchener and Guelph is a much longer route to Toronto than the current Via service going through Paris. Most (if not all) of the speed gains will be eaten by the longer distances, particularly since the Kitchener-Toronto leg will share track with GO and probably operate at conventional speeds.

The London-Toronto segment will surely lure a large amount of riders if this is done right and it does indeed make a lot of sense to route it through Kitchener (not so much Guelph). Regardless of the detour, HSR would still be significantly faster than current VIA rail service between Toronto and London (73 minutes vs 130-150 minutes). Also, it's not just about connecting London to Toronto, but rather connecting all of Southwestern Ontario's large urban centers to one another to improve the flow of capital and to create more opportunities for their growing economies. The fact that these urban centers will have much greater accessibility to Pearson with HSR is a huge plus on its own.

As someone who goes to school in Waterloo, I can tell you that travel options between KWC and Toronto are completely unacceptable. Outside of limited peak GO Train service, it typically takes 2 hours to travel only 95 km between the two cities. I'm not sold on the feasibility and need of the Windsor-London segment, but the London-Toronto segment is a no-brainer IMO.

[Hybrid247]

I think this article does a great job of showing the need for HSR in that corridor: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/pat-d-l...b_4441864.html

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The other thing that makes no sense is routing London and Windsor traffic through Kitchener and Guelph is a much longer route to Toronto than the current Via service going through Paris. Most (if not all) of the speed gains will be eaten by the longer distances, particularly since the Kitchener-Toronto leg will share track with GO and probably operate at conventional speeds.

This is untrue. The route through Kitchener is pretty much exactly the same length as the route through Brantford. Both are about 180 km from Toronto to London. Don't forget that the Kitchener route would involve a new alignment between Kitchener and London, which would cut off a fair amount of distance.

Besides, the main driving force behind this is improving ties between the tech sector in Kitchener-Waterloo, Pearson Airport and Toronto. Everything else is secondary.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Mister F

This is untrue. The route through Kitchener is pretty much exactly the same length as the route through Brantford. Both are about 180 km from Toronto to London. Don't forget that the Kitchener route would involve a new alignment between Kitchener and London, which would cut off a fair amount of distance.

London to Union via Via is 155km (at least according to the wikipedia)
Kitchener to Union is 102 km (same source)

The only way you could get anywhere near 180 would be by cutting a straight line from London to Kitchener stations (which is way more expropriation than would be politically palatable and would involve destroying the London airport). In the real world the Kitchener route would probably be 50ish km longer, which is 30ish percent longer than the Via route.

Originally Posted by Mister F

Besides, the main driving force behind this is improving ties between the tech sector in Kitchener-Waterloo, Pearson Airport and Toronto. Everything else is secondary.

And any improvement in Kitchener-Toronto traffic will come from the GO Transit improvements (which is a separate project). Nobody is proposing building a high speed line from Kitchener to Toronto.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by acottawa

London to Union via Via is 155km (at least according to the wikipedia)
Kitchener to Union is 102 km (same source)

The only way you could get anywhere near 180 would be by cutting a straight line from London to Kitchener stations (which is way more expropriation than would be politically palatable and would involve destroying the London airport). In the real world the Kitchener route would probably be 50ish km longer, which is 30ish percent longer than the Via route.

Wikipedia is wrong. You can measure it for yourself on Google Maps. The current Via route from London to Union is ~185 km. To drive it is 190 km.

For the proposed HSR route through Kitchener, again, measure it on Google Maps if you want. It's in the same 180-185 km ballpark.

Originally Posted by acottawa

And any improvement in Kitchener-Toronto traffic will come from the GO Transit improvements (which is a separate project). Nobody is proposing building a high speed line from Kitchener to Toronto.

Actually that's exactly what was announced yesterday.

[lrt's friend]

This is the way to the future.

Lots of students in Guelph, Kitchener-Waterloo, and London. Lots of people wanting to fly from Pearson. Lots of people wanting to go to Toronto for business and pleasure.

And looking down the line further, with the recent agreement for pre-clearing train passengers, the potential re-introduction of passenger rail to Detroit and Chicago. The need for a new rail tunnel for double stacked freight trains under the Detroit River may leave the existing tunnel available for passenger trains.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Actually that's exactly what was announced yesterday.

Both Scenario A and Scenario B in the announcement primarily share track with GO, which is undertaking a separate (and very needed) upgrade project. Both Scenario A and Senario B project speeds well in the conventional range (41 or 48 minutes to travel about 100 km assuming it does not stop). That is not a high speed line, it is a conventional line where they are proposing to run high speed rolling stock (which will run at high speeds west of Kitchener). A GO train should be able to undertake the same route outlined in Scenario B in the same amount of time. Even if Scenario A is chosen, the High Speed train would struggle to compete with a GO service that is only 7 minutes slower (and more frequent and probably cheaper).

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Both Scenario A and Scenario B in the announcement primarily share track with GO, which is undertaking a separate (and very needed) upgrade project. Both Scenario A and Senario B project speeds well in the conventional range (41 or 48 minutes to travel about 100 km assuming it does not stop). That is not a high speed line, it is a conventional line where they are proposing to run high speed rolling stock (which will run at high speeds west of Kitchener). A GO train should be able to undertake the same route outlined in Scenario B in the same amount of time. Even if Scenario A is chosen, the High Speed train would struggle to compete with a GO service that is only 7 minutes slower (and more frequent and probably cheaper).

But there will be stops, at Guelph and Pearson. Sure, some trains probably won't stop in Guelph, but those travel times appear to take both into account. So if my math is correct, that's an average speed of 144 or 120 km/h between Toronto and Kitchener, including all stops and slower urban sections. That means much higher speeds in the rural areas between Brampton and Kitchener. In fact, the report specifically recommends designing the RER upgrades of the Kitchener GO line to allow speeds of up to 250 km/h.

Taking advantage of existing infrastructure to build HSR is common in countries like Germany, especially in built up areas. The report acknowledges that they're using a German-style model for this proposal. This involves using RER infrastructure that's being built anyway and making it compatible with high speed trains.

[Truenorth00]

Why is there any debate at all on this proposal? It's an obvious pre-election ploy. Notice how they didn't put an ounce of funding other than the EA. They also didn't even hint at an plan to actually get funding in place.

At least we know VIA is talking to the infra bank. I'd say that's far more likely to go forward. Best case scenario that I can see is that the Toronto-Kitchener-London line gets merged into VIA's HFR proposal to make a continuous line from London to Montreal.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Mister F

But there will be stops, at Guelph and Pearson. Sure, some trains probably won't stop in Guelph, but those travel times appear to take both into account. So if my math is correct, that's an average speed of 144 or 120 km/h between Toronto and Kitchener, including all stops and slower urban sections. That means much higher speeds in the rural areas between Brampton and Kitchener. In fact, the report specifically recommends designing the RER upgrades of the Kitchener GO line to allow speeds of up to 250 km/h.

Taking advantage of existing infrastructure to build HSR is common in countries like Germany, especially in built up areas. The report acknowledges that they're using a German-style model for this proposal. This involves using RER infrastructure that's being built anyway and making it compatible with high speed trains.

Scenario B has no dedicated high speed rail track. There will be a GO train every 15 minutes and European trains that share track with commuter trains do not go at high speed. Even with the Scenario A "dig up the greenbelt" plan only yields 7 minutes of time savings. Most European high speed trains don't even stop at cities as close as Kitchener (and certainly not cities as close as Guelph) because the speed advantages are so minimal and it slows down the overall service. But then again, as Truenorth says, this is a re-election project, not a transportation project.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Scenario B has no dedicated high speed rail track. There will be a GO train every 15 minutes and European trains that share track with commuter trains do not go at high speed. Even with the Scenario A "dig up the greenbelt" plan only yields 7 minutes of time savings. Most European high speed trains don't even stop at cities as close as Kitchener (and certainly not cities as close as Guelph) because the speed advantages are so minimal and it slows down the overall service. But then again, as Truenorth says, this is a re-election project, not a transportation project.

I'm not sure what you mean by dedicated track, but the proposal is to upgrade the current line to support 250 km/h. That's a high speed line any way you look at it. European trains that share tracks with commuter trains do go at high speed. In England for example, international trains go up to 320 while commuter trains go 225 on the same tracks. BTW RER is only proposed to have 15 minute service as far as Bramalea, with hourly service to Kitchener. HSR would add 2-3 hourly trains to Kitchener depending on the time of day.

European high speed trains routinely stop at distances as close as Kitchener and sometimes even Guelph. The distance from Essen to Duisburg is 24 km, about the same as Kitchener-Guelph. ICE stations less than 100 km apart are all over the German network.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Mister F

I'm not sure what you mean by dedicated track, but the proposal is to upgrade the current line to support 250 km/h. That's a high speed line any way you look at it. European trains that share tracks with commuter trains do go at high speed. In England for example, international trains go up to 320 while commuter trains go 225 on the same tracks. BTW RER is only proposed to have 15 minute service as far as Bramalea, with hourly service to Kitchener. HSR would add 2-3 hourly trains to Kitchener depending on the time of day.

European high speed trains routinely stop at distances as close as Kitchener and sometimes even Guelph. The distance from Essen to Duisburg is 24 km, about the same as Kitchener-Guelph. ICE stations less than 100 km apart are all over the German network.

Are you calling HS1 a commuter line? It uses Japanese high speed rolling stock and only makes two intermediate stops on the high speed segment. It is not a commuter line in the same sense as GO RER (frequent stops, conventional rolling stock, 15 or 30 minute service) and not in any way comparable as an example of high speed trains (running at high speed) sharing track with regular commuter trains.

When German Trains run on conventional lines (which they do in most of North Rhine Westphalia) then they often make frequent stops, but they are not offering a high speed service and it would be quite rare to take a high speed train between those close cities (where you would have to book in advance and pay a premium compared to the s-bahn or a local or commuter train).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

When German Trains run on conventional lines (which they do in most of North Rhine Westphalia) then they often make frequent stops, but they are not offering a high speed service and it would be quite rare to take a high speed train between those close cities (where you would have to book in advance and pay a premium compared to the s-bahn or a local or commuter train).

And I think it would be quite rare to take a train from K/W to Guelph, just like it would be rare to take this train from downtown Toronto to Pearson (partially because you would likely need to connect. More likely would be to take the train from either K/W or Guelph to Toronto (either downtown or Pearson).

The travel time estimates are likely assuming is is HSR the entire length, but the EA will discover that it will be too expensive to do that, but by then the election will be over.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by roger1818

And I think it would be quite rare to take a train from K/W to Guelph, just like it would be rare to take this train from downtown Toronto to Pearson (partially because you would likely need to connect. More likely would be to take the train from either K/W or Guelph to Toronto (either downtown or Pearson).

The travel time estimates are likely assuming is is HSR the entire length, but the EA will discover that it will be too expensive to do that, but by then the election will be over.

I think it is only rare to take a train from KW to Guelph because the cities are so decentralized, and there are relatively few destinations in either downtown. For anything not downtown (like most of the tech companies and Manulife), driving becomes a much better option (and will get even better with the new Hwy 7 that is under construction).

The biggest problem with the Kitchener-Toronto route is the section through Guelph, which requires trains to literally run down residential streets at something like 10 kmph. Not sure how downtown Guelph would be served by high speed rail. I think it is more likely that a station is built in the south end of town, which will not be useful for Kitchener-Guelph passengers, aside from some enterprising University of Guelph students.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

I think it is only rare to take a train from KW to Guelph because the cities are so decentralized, and there are relatively few destinations in either downtown. For anything not downtown (like most of the tech companies and Manulife), driving becomes a much better option (and will get even better with the new Hwy 7 that is under construction).

The biggest problem with the Kitchener-Toronto route is the section through Guelph, which requires trains to literally run down residential streets at something like 10 kmph. Not sure how downtown Guelph would be served by high speed rail. I think it is more likely that a station is built in the south end of town, which will not be useful for Kitchener-Guelph passengers, aside from some enterprising University of Guelph students.

Did the Schabas report recommend a bypass? I foresee either a tunnel through town with the station or a bypass with the station located just before it.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Are you calling HS1 a commuter line? It uses Japanese high speed rolling stock and only makes two intermediate stops on the high speed segment. It is not a commuter line in the same sense as GO RER (frequent stops, conventional rolling stock, 15 or 30 minute service) and not in any way comparable as an example of high speed trains (running at high speed) sharing track with regular commuter trains.

It's just the first example I thought of with trains of varying speeds using the same tracks. Italy also has high speed trains sharing tracks with commuter trains. But yes, HS1 is a commuter line in the sense that it carries significant commuter traffic.

Eurostar runs two to three trains per hour in each direction between London and the Channel Tunnel.[93] Southeastern runs in the high peak eight trains per hour between London and Ebbsfleet, two of these continuing to Ashford.

The line to Kitchener has more stations and slower proposed speeds, so it's actually more like the high speed lines in Italy like the one between Naples and Palermo (29 km apart, 250 km/h speeds, frequent commuter stations in between). Ontario isn't reinventing the wheel here. And with the tracks being upgraded for higher speeds, there's no reason that GO Transit couldn't buy electric trains that can take advantage of those speeds...so much like other parts of the world, we could end up with commuter trains going 200+.

Originally Posted by acottawa

When German Trains run on conventional lines (which they do in most of North Rhine Westphalia) then they often make frequent stops, but they are not offering a high speed service and it would be quite rare to take a high speed train between those close cities (where you would have to book in advance and pay a premium compared to the s-bahn or a local or commuter train).

I'm not talking about conventional lines for the most part. I'm mostly talking about their lines with similar speeds as the Ontario plan. The line that goes south from Hamburg for example has speeds of 250 and the stations are every 50-100 km.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Read the HFR proposal. Since the trains run faster, they'll be able to do more turns with the same equipment. This means higher asset utilization on the same fixed cost base. And even improve efficiency of variables like their staff. So they'll be offer a lot more seats. They think they can beat out the bus, and from looking at what will happen, I think they will come close. Would you take HFR if it was $50 and VIA was $41? Maybe some folks will. But I suspect quite a few will move to the train.



They aren't even looking to make fares higher though. Desjardins-Sciliano has been very specific in his pitch for HFR. He specifically stated that he doesn't support HSR because if you look at fares and ridership in Europe, it excludes the middle class. He's also said that fares should come down with more seats and that he wants to attract those who drive today. That tells me that they'll make this competitive with the bus.

They're talking about 110 km/h average speeds, which is faster than the current service (by about an hour) but not fast enough that you are going to get major savings in rolling stock usage (a train could theoretically make 4 one-way trips per day instead of 3).

They can say whatever they want, they want $4B for track, $1.5 billion for new rolling stock and $2B for electrification (which is a very low estimate compared to other electrification projects). It is possible that the federal government will pay every cent of that, plus (further) subsidize the operating cost to get fares down to greyhound levels. However, if passengers are expected to pay any of the capex fares are likely to rise (which is what I said).

Either way, they're still in the "review by bureaucrats" phase, so this thing is 10 to 15 years in the future even if it is approved.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Mister F

It's just the first example I thought of with trains of varying speeds using the same tracks. Italy also has high speed trains sharing tracks with commuter trains. But yes, HS1 is a commuter line in the sense that it carries significant commuter traffic.

Eurostar runs two to three trains per hour in each direction between London and the Channel Tunnel.[93] Southeastern runs in the high peak eight trains per hour between London and Ebbsfleet, two of these continuing to Ashford.

The line to Kitchener has more stations and slower proposed speeds, so it's actually more like the high speed lines in Italy like the one between Naples and Palermo (29 km apart, 250 km/h speeds, frequent commuter stations in between). Ontario isn't reinventing the wheel here. And with the tracks being upgraded for higher speeds, there's no reason that GO Transit couldn't buy electric trains that can take advantage of those speeds...so much like other parts of the world, we could end up with commuter trains going 200+.



I'm not talking about conventional lines for the most part. I'm mostly talking about their lines with similar speeds as the Ontario plan. The line that goes south from Hamburg for example has speeds of 250 and the stations are every 50-100 km.

Ok, but commuter train usually refers to a specific type of service not any service that happens to carry commuters (with London real estate prices so high, all kinds of things have been turned into commuter services, including Ryanair). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_rail I am still not aware of any examples where something that looks like a GO train shares track with a high speed train running at high speeds on the shared portion. In most cases, the high speed trains run at conventional speeds in this sections or there is a parallel track for the high speed trains.


I assume you mean Salerno (because you will need scuba gear for a train to Palermo). That's an interesting example, but I think it is unlike Kitchener in several ways. It is no primarily used as a commuter service, it is an extension of a high-speed line (from Turin to Naples) rather than the core element of a high speed line, and it actually runs at high speeds, so it isn't sharing track with commuter trains (which continue to go around the mountain).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

They're talking about 110 km/h average speeds, which is faster than the current service (by about an hour) but not fast enough that you are going to get major savings in rolling stock usage (a train could theoretically make 4 one-way trips per day instead of 3).

They can say whatever they want, they want $4B for track, $1.5 billion for new rolling stock and $2B for electrification (which is a very low estimate compared to other electrification projects). It is possible that the federal government will pay every cent of that, plus (further) subsidize the operating cost to get fares down to greyhound levels. However, if passengers are expected to pay any of the capex fares are likely to rise (which is what I said).

Either way, they're still in the "review by bureaucrats" phase, so this thing is 10 to 15 years in the future even if it is approved.

They are saying from 4 to 2.5 hrs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw7P...utu.be&t=4m11s

And a 4-5 year implementation time:

http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-r...dicated-tracks

And their business case is already in at Transport Canada for the new infrastructure bank:

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/...ture-bank.html

Sure. This being Canada it could all be nothing. But I am optimistic. Desjardins-Siciliano has said he could do this without taxpayer investment. So between government funding for train replacements and institutional capital shepherded through the infra bank, I think this project has a better shot at happening than just about any other public transport major project in Canada. It's the only one that could provide an institutional investor reasonable return with a business case built on years of data.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

They are saying from 4 to 2.5 hrs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw7P...utu.be&t=4m11s

And a 4-5 year implementation time:

http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-r...dicated-tracks

And their business case is already in at Transport Canada for the new infrastructure bank:

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/...ture-bank.html

Sure. This being Canada it could all be nothing. But I am optimistic. Desjardins-Siciliano has said he could do this without taxpayer investment. So between government funding for train replacements and institutional capital shepherded through the infra bank, I think this project has a better shot at happening than just about any other public transport major project in Canada. It's the only one that could provide an institutional investor reasonable return with a business case built on years of data.

I think the project is a good idea, but Via is putting out a lot of contradictory information and few details, which leaves me lacking confidence in its implementation.

It is currently in the evaluation by bureaucrats stage, which the budget says is is a 3 year process. Then there probably needs to be a feasibility study, which took three years in SW Ontario, then an environmental assessment, which takes a few years, then an RFQ, then an RFP, then it goes into the queue of projects that need funding, then the design and engineering, then a few years of construction.

I have a hard time believing it can be fast, frequent, cheap and attract private sector funding (certainly other rail projects do not meet all of these criteria). That sounds like a project where communications experts have had a leading role, rather than transportation experts.