VIA Rail

[Truenorth00]

^ You are ignoring the entire Kingston hub concept. Those services would be much better timed since they originate in Kingston. And they'd probably be all-stop till their termini at Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. This would better enable travel between Lakeshore communities and would let Kingston have what amount to decent regional service, that would even enable some ex-urban commuting.

[Nouvellecosse]

Kingston can still be an important transfer point for local service whether or not many local trips start or end there. While I don't have a preference between corridors other than whatever can get underway the quickest, I don't think it's true that a Lakeshore HSR route would harm local lakeshore service. If anything it would help it because the corridor would get electrification and additional track capacity. Plus people going to local Lakeshore stops could more easily take HSR for part of the trip before transfering to local which could make the trip quicker depending on the scheduling.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Kingston can still be an important transfer point for local service whether or not many local trips start or end there. While I don't have a preference between corridors other than whatever can get underway the quickest, I don't think it's true that a Lakeshore HSR route would harm local lakeshore service. If anything it would help it because the corridor would get electrification and additional track capacity. Plus people going to local Lakeshore stops could more easily take HSR for part of the trip before transfering to local which could make the trip quicker depending on the scheduling.

It’s really tiring and frustrating to see how little effort you make to understand the economic and commercial fundamentals of intercity passenger railroading, regardless of how often it is explained to you: Small stations like Napannee, Trenton and Port Hope depend on local services (as these are the only ones which serve them), but cannot sustain them alone. At the same time, every train stopping there will also serve Kingston, Toronto and every VIA station inbetween.

Your idea that people from these small stations might transfer to Express trains en-route is therefore only relevant for passengers traveling beyond Kingston or Toronto, which will be a tiny fraction of their already small number. And in order to transfer somewhere, they first need a train (or bus, which would have to be paid by the limited tax revenue of their municipality) to reach an Express station. The only way to effectively serve the Lakeshore communities is by making all-stop services the focus and not the exception - and that’s simply not possible when the larger communities can effectively flag down Express trains and thus deprive the Local trains of their minimum viable ridership levels…

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Given that there are a lot of awkwardly spaced train timings between Kingston and Toronto (lots of trips that depart 30 minutes apart from each other than nothing for 2 hours, for example) it's not that hard to continue operating a Toronto-Kingston service comparable to the current quality of service with reduced train counts (fewer trains per day offset by more consistent headways) for similar ticket prices & subsidy requirements as today. But diverting Kingston-Toronto point-to-point traffic away from such a local service prevents this business case from working.

Yes, not only should there be more of a consistent, clockface schedule, but the service pattern should be consistent, too. You should know that if you leave Kingston at 12:34 that you'll arrive in Toronto at 15:14, and that if you leave on the 18:34, that you'll arrive at 21:14 (using hypothetical times).

I think there should be the same stopping pattern: Kingston-Belleville-Cobourg-Oshawa-Guildwood-Toronto, Union and all of the intermediate small stops like Napanee, Trenton, Port Hope, etc. should be served by a connecting bus.

I don't know how many trips a day Kingston-Toronto would warrant, but I'd guess the ratios would be something like:

K-TO, K-OTTAWA, K-MTL = 2:2:1

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I think there should be the same stopping pattern: Kingston-Belleville-Cobourg-Oshawa-Guildwood-Toronto, Union and all of the intermediate small stops like Napanee, Trenton, Port Hope, etc. should be served by a connecting bus.

Koodos for actually bothering to envision service patterns and for acknowledging that running HFR/HSR along the Lakeshore would undermine the viability of continued service to NAPN, TRNJ or PHOP - especially since all stations will have to be rebuilt along the greenfield alignment…

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

It’s really tiring and frustrating to see how little effort you make to understand the economic and commercial fundamentals of intercity passenger railroading, regardless of how often it is explained to you: Small stations like Napannee, Trenton and Port Hope depend on local services (as these are the only ones which serve them), but cannot sustain them alone. At the same time, every train stopping there will also serve Kingston, Toronto and every VIA station inbetween.

Your idea that people from these small stations might transfer to Express trains en-route is therefore only relevant for passengers traveling beyond Kingston or Toronto, which will be a tiny fraction of their already small number. And in order to transfer somewhere, they first need a train (or bus, which would have to be paid by the limited tax revenue of their municipality) to reach an Express station. The only way to effectively serve the Lakeshore communities is by making all-stop services the focus and not the exception - and that’s simply not possible when the larger communities can effectively flag down Express trains and thus deprive the Local trains of their minimum viable ridership levels…

We don't know what the passenger numbers would actually be once significant service enhancements are online because both service enhancements and population/economic growth generate more ridership. While we can certainly try to estimate them, we cannot fully assume them based on the current passenger numbers or trends. Regardless, we're talking about subsidized services so none of them are economically sustained by the stations they're stopping at. Yes, services that require less subsidy per rider may garner more political support, but political support isn't as direct a relationship as economics are with private, non-subsidized service.

That being said, generally the best way to persuade someone is to... persuade them. What isn't persuasive is to lecture them about how disappointed you are that they haven't already been persuaded.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Koodos for actually bothering to envision service patterns and for acknowledging that running HFR/HSR along the Lakeshore would undermine the viability of continued service to NAPN, TRNJ or PHOP - especially since all stations will have to be rebuilt along the greenfield alignment…

It would probably be better to keep the smaller stations at their current locations and just have the HSR bypass them with diversions. While local and HSR could share the same corridor 95% of the time there's no reason, other than slight cost differences, that it must be 100%.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

That being said, generally the best way to persuade someone is to... persuade them. What isn't persuasive is to lecture them about how disappointed you are that they haven't already been persuaded.

We have a saying in German that you may carry a horse to the water hole, but it still has to drink by itself. If you seem to believe that it doesn’t really matter whether a publicly supported transportation service recovers 90%, 50% or 10% of its cost (i.e. requires a subsidy of $0.11, $1 or $9 for each Dollar in Revenues), then probably no amount of persuasion will make you realize that in the cases we are discussing here it is among the most fundamental factors which determine whether things stand a chance of happening or not…

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

We have a saying in German that you may carry a horse to the water hole, but it still has to drink by itself. If you seem to believe that it doesn’t really matter whether a publicly supported transportation service recovers 90%, 50% or 10% of its cost (i.e. requires a subsidy of $0.11, $1 or $9 for each Dollar in Revenues), then probably no amount of persuasion will make you realize that in the cases we are discussing here it is among the most fundamental factors which determine whether things stand a chance of happening or not…

Based on your reply, you're making assumptions about my beliefs beyond what I'm saying. It's not that the farebox recovery ratio doesn't matter, it's that people consider such economic factors when making the final decision rather than the decision being dictated by the economics. So people decide where the subsidy cut-off line should be drawn rather than the line being pre-drawn and unchanging.

It's also important to remember how the economics would be different under the new set up. Currently the corridor services use locomotive hauled consists which are very inefficient for short trains - especially the old locos they currently often use. I've seen VIA corridor trains with a loco pulling as few as two or three coaches. DMUs - or especially EMUs - would make low volume service much less costly, but even newer loco-hauled consists would have lower operating costs. But Lakeshore electrification would likely only be considered if using Lakeshore as the mainline. The other issue is that on routes where VIA mostly or entirely rents track slots from the private sector, each trip will have a higher fixed operating cost than for track that VIA owns. Both the HFR and HSR proposals involve VIA-owned trackage which affects the economics. So with HFR or HSR on the northern route, Lakeshore services could actually be less economic. There would be more passengers but each train movement would be a lot more expensive. We'd need to see the final numbers to know how that would actually play out.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by acottawa

There is nothing stopping the government of Nova Scotia from building a railway to meet its exact needs.

They did, back in the 1850's. It ran from Halifax to Truro/Pictou (around Pictou the Albion Railway was built in the 1830's) and the Annapolis Valley. The railway became part of the ICR and later was given to CN and here we are. One of those old rail lines runs through what is now quite a congested area without many transportation alternatives.

NS has set up a transportation agency that is supposed to consider rail and come out with a report in 2024. We will see what the results are. NS is a small province and I doubt they have a lot of staff familiar with rail projects. They tend to favour highways, buses, and ferries. Halifax Transit is unfortunately often set in its ways as well; they still have no electronic payment system and you need exact change at the ferry terminals, or you have to go somewhere else to buy paper passes. I think if there were well-run transit system we'd see a lot more transit in general and eventually some rail service which could grow into multicity passenger rail (even if only Halifax-Truro or Halifax-Truro-Moncton). This would just be bringing back service levels from the 2000's, a time when the population along the corridor was significantly smaller than it will be if and when reasonable rail service is ever rebooted.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It's also important to remember how the economics would be different under the new set up. Currently the corridor services use locomotive hauled consists which are very inefficient for short trains - especially the old locos they currently often use. I've seen VIA corridor trains with a loco pulling as few as two or three coaches. DMUs - or especially EMUs - would make low volume service much less costly, but even newer loco-hauled consists would have lower operating costs.

First of all, VIA is in the process of replacing their entire corridor fleet with modern Siemens Charger locomotives and Venture coaches, so they will soon start seeing the lower operating costs you are suggesting.

Secondly, looking at a VIA Corridor Cycling plan from 2018, VIA only had 1 trainset that operated with 2 coaches (HEP-7), which was used trains 85 & 88, and there were only two trainsets that only had 3 cars (LRC-12 & LRC-13), but both had an extra car added to them midway through the week (presumably to accommodate additional demand).

On the opposite end of the scale, there were 12 x 4-car trainsets (one which had a fifth car added), 12 x 5-car trainsets (one which had a 6th car added) and 2 x 6-car trainsets.

One of the big advantages of the new fleet is standardization of equipment, which will greatly reduce maintenance cost. Adding a few DMUs to the mix would work against this and would counter the operational savings, and reduce operational flexibility as certain trainsets become tied to certain routes.

For the remote services, they are so few and far between, to keep maintenance costs low, they would likely be best to match whatever is purchased to replace the long distance fleet (if anything).

But Lakeshore electrification would likely only be considered if using Lakeshore as the mainline.

Electrification of the Lakeshore could only happen with the permission of the host railway, something the freight railways have been extremely resistant to. The best opportunity for electrification would be for VIA to own the corridor it operates on, and that won't be the Lakeshore, unless it is a greenfield route.

The other issue is that on routes where VIA mostly or entirely rents track slots from the private sector, each trip will have a higher fixed operating cost than for track that VIA owns. Both the HFR and HSR proposals involve VIA-owned trackage which affects the economics. So with HFR or HSR on the northern route, Lakeshore services could actually be less economic. There would be more passengers but each train movement would be a lot more expensive. We'd need to see the final numbers to know how that would actually play out.

Are you suggesting that VIA gets a bulk discount from CN for operating so many trains on the Lakeshore? I would expect the opposite and each additional train is exponentially more expensive than the previous as it cuts further into CN's capacity, so removing the express trains, that don't do much to serve the Lakeshore anyway, will likely result in significant savings (especially when you consider the priority required by trains with a higher average speed, due to fewer stops, will also result in additional cost).

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by roger1818

One of the big advantages of the new fleet is standardization of equipment, which will greatly reduce maintenance cost. Adding a few DMUs to the mix would work against this and would counter the operational savings, and reduce operational flexibility as certain trainsets become tied to certain routes.

For the remote services, they are so few and far between, to keep maintenance costs low, they would likely be best to match whatever is purchased to replace the long distance fleet (if anything).

Whether there was a separate northern corridor or a lakeshore HSR, the Lakeshore local service would have lower passenger volumes compared to today. But because they could use a single model of light capacity, high efficiency stock - whatever that might be - they wouldn't need a mix of models or lengths and wouldn't be stuck with current low efficiency trains. The main point I was making is that lower passenger volume services with a new high efficiency train may not be much (or any) less economic than higher volume services with old low efficiency trains.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Electrification of the Lakeshore could only happen with the permission of the host railway, something the freight railways have been extremely resistant to. The best opportunity for electrification would be for VIA to own the corridor it operates on, and that won't be the Lakeshore, unless it is a greenfield route.

If there was a Lakeshore HSR, there would almost certainly need to be dedicated passenger tracks meaning that the freight carriers wouldn't be involved in the decision making. Track sharing is a no-go even for increased service at conventional speeds considering the main reason for the HFR proposal was to address the problems currently caused by shared track. Electrification was even proposed for HFR when it isn't strictly necessary, so I can't see full HSR not having it. But if CN prevents the construction of parallel dedicated electrified tack on the corridor then the plan wouldn't move forward so talking about a non-electrified Lakeshore option would be moot.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Are you suggesting that VIA gets a bulk discount from CN for operating so many trains on the Lakeshore? I would expect the opposite and each additional train is exponentially more expensive than the previous as it cuts further into CN's capacity, so removing the express trains, that don't do much to serve the Lakeshore anyway, will likely result in significant savings (especially when you consider the priority required by trains with a higher average speed, due to fewer stops, will also result in additional cost).

I'm assuming that under Lakeshore HSR, both express and local service would use dedicated passenger tracks in the same way as Acela on the NEC other than perhaps on short stretches through city centres if the HSR track bypasses the city. In that scenario if there wasn't room for an extra track though the city the train could have a short battery range to avoid electrifying those sections.

So VIA would be paying little or no CN track fees under a Lakeshore HSR plan but would continue paying under a northern route. Therefore the resulting lower ridership on the local service would be fully or partially offset by lower costs. Plus, since the local service would be faster using the dedicated HSR tracks because of higher quality dedicated passenger tracks, no grade crossings and no freight interaction on most of the route, it would also reduce the labour hours required to operate it. So the combination of lower energy, maintenance, labour, and track usage costs could mean the low volume of ridership on Lakeshore local service under Lakeshore HSR isn't unreasonable economically. So we'd need to see the specific numbers before assuming that a Lakeshore HSR would automatically lead to local services being slashed.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Whether there was a separate northern corridor or a lakeshore HSR, the Lakeshore local service would have lower passenger volumes compared to today. But because they could use a single model of light capacity, high efficiency stock - whatever that might be - they wouldn't need a mix of models or lengths and wouldn't be stuck with current low efficiency trains. The main point I was making is that lower passenger volume services with a new high efficiency train may not be much (or any) less economic than higher volume services with old low efficiency trains.

The future fleet for the Local services is already known: it is the Siemens trainsets which are currently entering VIA service. The introduction of HSR service would require an entirely new dedicated HSR fleet, but for simple electrification, only the locomotives will need to be replaced. There are two reasons why you won't see any of your "low-cost EMUs" on these services: a) the Corridor fleet will be (even post-HSR) way too small to support three different fleet types and b) no rolling stock exists anywhere on the North American market which could be used here.

Also, you seem to believe that track access charges and maintenance are the biggest drivers of operating costs, but you are forgetting labour costs: VIA's minimum staffing level are the same as those of a 12-car GO train with 2 Locomotive Engineers and 1 Service Manager. We unfortunately are many, many years away from accepting single-LE operations and that is also one of the big reasons why introducing low-riderhsip intercity services in places like Atlantic Canada is so unviable...

I'm assuming that under Lakeshore HSR, both express and local service would use dedicated passenger tracks in the same way as Acela on the NEC other than perhaps on short stretches through city centres if the HSR track bypasses the city. In that scenario if there wasn't room for an extra track though the city the train could have a short battery range to avoid electrifying those sections.

I'm not aware of any intercity EMU trainsets which would support battery-operation on shorter stretches, let alone one which would be FRA/TC-compliant. Are you?
Besides, building links between the HSR line and the legacy line would be terribly expensive, given that the 401 Highway will be inbetween (the more shallow the angle of intersection, the higher the cost). No sane government/investor will pay such an expense just to get to downtown Port Hope and back...

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

The future fleet for the Local services is already known: it is the Siemens trainsets which are currently entering VIA service. The introduction of HSR service would require an entirely new dedicated HSR fleet, but for simple electrification, only the locomotives will need to be replaced. There are two reasons why you won't see any of your "low-cost EMUs" on these services: a) the Corridor fleet will be (even post-HSR) way too small to support three different fleet types and b) no rolling stock exists anywhere on the North American market which could be used here.

I misspoke when I mentioned EMUs since electric locos would be more likely for intercity service. There would only need to be two models. One for HSR (express) and one for local service. I didn't mention anything about having three models so I'm not sure where that's coming into play. They may choose to use the chargers since they can apparently be converted to electric operation, but given the size and scope of changes under an HSR project, they could also sell them and produce something else. That's just speculation that isn't really relevant to the point.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Also, you seem to believe that track access charges and maintenance are the biggest cost factors, but you are forgetting labour costs: VIA's minimum staffing level are the same as those of a 12-car GO train with 2 Locomotive Engineers and 1 Service Manager. We are many, many years away from accepting single-LE operations...

I haven't made any comment about which factor is the biggest, but when I mentioned labour costs it had nothing to do with the number of staff on each train. I mentioned travel times since if local services get faster, then staff won't need to be paid as long to cover it. For instance, if a trip that averaged 5 hours became 10% shorter that would cut an average of 1/2 hour off what each crew member would need to be paid which would add up when talking about multiple trips per direction per day. I tried to make that clear but I'm sorry if it wasn't.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

I'm not aware of any intercity EMU which would support battery-operation on shorter stretches, let alone one those which are FRA/TC-compliant. Are you?
Besides, building links between the HSR line and the legacy line would be terribly expensive, given that the 401 Highway will be inbetween (the more shallow the angle of intersection, the higher the cost). Nobody sane will pay such an expense just to get to downtown Port Hope and back...

I'm also not aware of any railroad in NA with sustained HSR speeds or any intercity corridor in Canada with track electrification. Battery operation on mainline stock is something fairly new and doesn't have widespread use yet but there are definitely examples in the world and OEMs introducing solutions. Looking at major new projects requires one to stop worrying about what was done in older projects and consider what is currently feasible at the time of the new project. Not to ignore older projects completely (I have to use lots of caveats with people who make assumptions beyond what's said) but just not to fear taking advantage of a new innovation.

There's nothing unreasonable about applying innovations, especially one that are just a new arrangement of existing technologies. If everyone was afraid of using any new innovations then no one would have wanted to be the first to use electric or diesel traction in the era of steam. If someone suggested it, everyone would have said, "Well is diesel or electric already in widespread use??" rather than just considering the benefits and draw backs of the innovation on its merits. I personally like the idea of Canada leading for once and applying innovative solutions. Besides, even with the older HFR proposals, they only expected about 90% of the route to be electrified while short sections shared with freight carriers such as entering Toronto an Montreal may not be. So there'd need to be hybrid operation of some sort regardless. That could mean switching to diesel power using dual-mode locos which is already done in some places but that doesn't tend to be very efficient.

Regarding the bypass track, the HSR will need to leave the current mainline corridor a few times to bypass small towns and cities since having the necessary grade separation or other safety measures through the urban areas would be very difficult. So the track would be leaving the mainline corridor and rejoining it anyway. The only other option beyond the bypass would be for the express trains to slow down significantly through communities or run on a viaduct (and viaducts attract NIMBYs). Having a few criss-cross tracks or flyovers along a multi-hundred km route to join the new passenger tracks to the current tracks would just be a small part of the overall project cost.

[Truenorth00]

The government launched the RFP for HFR on Friday:

https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-c...l-project.html

The details that have come out seem to approach the low end of High Speed Rail with trains capable of at least 200 kph. What average speeds work out to be remains to be seen. Nevertheless, this is arguably the furthest any Canadian intercity passenger rail initiative has reached in generations.

[DarkArconio]

It's more ambitious than setting a max of 200kph:

To maximize public benefits and innovation, RFP bidders will have to develop two solutions with respect to speed. One solution must include trains that can reach a maximum speed of 200 kilometres per hour, which is faster than the service offered today. The second solution must include high speed segments for faster travel. This will allow for a rigorous assessment of the costs and benefits of incorporating high speed rail on each segment of the Corridor.

Adds an incentive for bidders to get as much speed into the system as they can affordably. Excited to see what proposals come out of this.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by DarkArconio

Adds an incentive for bidders to get as much speed into the system as they can affordably. Excited to see what proposals come out of this.

Rather than speed, I think the onus should be on reduced travel times, which is the same 'end', but maybe a different 'means'.

A focus on speed leads to building sections of dedicated high speed lines with all the huge costs that entails.

A focus on cutting travel times might lead to identifying very low speed sections and spending relatively modest amounts of money to bring these areas up to moderate speeds.

Two bidders might have very different approaches and end up with the same travel times between Toronto and Ottawa. Consortium A proposes blasting a 300 km/h alignment out of the Canadian shield between Havelock and Perth but does things like use the existing, very low speed alignment through the centre of Peterborough. Consortium B builds a 200 km/h bypass of Peterborough but only decides to engineer a 200 km/h (or lower) alignment through the Canadian shield.

Given the costs and increased risks, I'd actually go for option 'B'.

[Truenorth00]

They came up with this bid process because the two principal bidders have very different solutions. It's not about top speed. That's just establishing a minimum baseline that is slightly higher than today.

Siemens wants to use the Venture rolling stock that VIA is buying (rated for maximum of 201 kph) and build something that is closer to Brightline in functionality.

Alstom wants to bid the Avelia Liberty and build something that is slightly better than the Acela Express.

So how does the JPO compare these two very different ideas? They need to basically let them submit multiple proposals and look at the business cases that come out of this. There's a lot of dials to turn for bidders. Ridership projections go up as travel time goes down. But it's not a linear relationship. There are inflection points in the demand curve. And the same is true on price. There are threshold prices where demand ramps substantially. Speed and travel time come with costs. But speed and travel time can also be at odds when looking at station placement. Higher speed services tend to have fewer stations which increases travel time. Etc. It will be interesting to see which approach wins.

[Nouvellecosse]

Awesome to see what appears to be progress. Maybe it means something will actually happen.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Rather than speed, I think the onus should be on reduced travel times, which is the same 'end', but maybe a different 'means'.

A focus on speed leads to building sections of dedicated high speed lines with all the huge costs that entails.

A focus on cutting travel times might lead to identifying very low speed sections and spending relatively modest amounts of money to bring these areas up to moderate speeds.

Two bidders might have very different approaches and end up with the same travel times between Toronto and Ottawa. Consortium A proposes blasting a 300 km/h alignment out of the Canadian shield between Havelock and Perth but does things like use the existing, very low speed alignment through the centre of Peterborough. Consortium B builds a 200 km/h bypass of Peterborough but only decides to engineer a 200 km/h (or lower) alignment through the Canadian shield.

Given the costs and increased risks, I'd actually go for option 'B'.

I'd pick option B too in this case.

I think this is ultimately going to hinge on what the extra ridership from going faster means for the overall business case. With HSR, Alstom needs to be air travel competitive. That means an absolute maximum travel time of 3-3.5 hrs between Toronto and Montreal, via Peterborough and Ottawa. That also means fares aiming to undercut air travel, not so much aiming to replace driving. Siemens is probably aiming to be competitive with driving and hoping to boost ridership through better pricing. I'm guessing Siemens achieves 4.5 hrs for the same route, but can launch earlier and offer substantially cheaper fares than HSR.