VIA Rail network developments

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

I agree with you about the UofT prof promoting an urban centred approach that only commuter service is worthy of being funded by the federal government. We need inter-city surface transit just as much as urban and suburban transit. Intercity surface transit is a virtual wasteland in this country, especially outside the Windsor-Quebec Corridor. There are other areas that need either some service or improved service such as Calgary-Edmonton, and St John,NB to Moncton,NB to Halifax,NS.

Part of the problem here is the idea that the only metric that should matter is ridership. Started with LRT vs. Subway debates in Toronto. And now that same argument is being used to argue that the only transport projects worth funding are urban transit in the GTA.

There is one area I agree with the former PM (Harper) on. The feds shouldn't be in the business of funding urban transit. Leave that to the provinces. The feds should fund transport infrastructure that is relevant to the country or at least regional level. Make the fiscal room for the provinces that will let them do what they want. But focus actual federal efforts on national level projects.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I got $832.

And this goes back to what I was saying. VIA can't price seats like this to get 10 million riders. The pricing you see here is a result of their revenue management system ramping up as they run out of seats to sell. Likewise airlines are showing > $1400 for 4 to depart on Friday and return on Sunday.

Once we get to the point where they have ≥ 15 departures a day in each direction, their revenue model will shift too. Lot more seats to fill. Prices will have to stay down.

But this is not compatible with Via’s assertion that dependence on subsidies will go down and your assertion that this project will attract private sector funding. You are assuming an off-the-scale level of productivity increase.

Yes, it is probable that HFR would have lower operating costs, but this will be offset by the need to run parallel train service along the lakeshore corridor and no longer sharing maintence costs with freight. If the line is electrified that there will be significant new maintence costs.

It is also possible Via could take other measures to reduce fares (reducing enormous discounts for students, seniors, military, etc., and reducing its labour intensive approach to train and station operations), although Via doesn’t need HFR to do these things, so I am not sure HFR would be an inducement.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

I was able to get round trip VIA tickets to Toronto for less than 50 bucks each way.

If you book way in advance and/or choose really unpopular travel times. That is not how many people plan short-haul trips and is not an inducement to abandon driving.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

But this is not compatible with Via’s assertion that dependence on subsidies will go down and your assertion that this project will attract private sector funding. You are assuming an off-the-scale level of productivity increase.

Why not?

If you lower unit cost and increase the total amount of units offered, you can actually make more total profit. Enough indeed to overcome the subsidies taken up today and maybe enough profit to make investment worthwhile. This is exactly how some of the profitable conventional and HSR lines in the world work.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Yes, it is probable that HFR would have lower operating costs, but this will be offset by the need to run parallel train service along the lakeshore corridor and no longer sharing maintence costs with freight.

This bit is indeed curious. Clearly, the case for Lakeshore service is political. The question becomes, is that part of the HFR plan or a spin off that VIA will run, while investors get to invest only in Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal HFR service.

Originally Posted by acottawa

If the line is electrified that there will be significant new maintence costs.

I have literally never read an analysis where electrification does not pay for itself on any rail line with sufficient frequency. Diesel is expensive. And only going to get more expensive with carbon taxes.

This is exactly why there’s a big push for rail electrification on in most OECD countries.

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is also possible Via could take other measures to reduce fares (reducing enormous discounts for students, seniors, military, etc., and reducing its labour intensive approach to train and station operations), although Via doesn’t need HFR to do these things, so I am not sure HFR would be an inducement.

The problem with VIA’s “labour intensive” operation is the fact that productivity is low because they aren’t running enough trains. HFR should result with only a slight increase in personnel overhead, but a massive increase in pax-km. And it is that increase that should facilitate both profit and better late booking prices.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

If you book way in advance and/or choose really unpopular travel times. That is not how many people plan short-haul trips and is not an inducement to abandon driving.

You’re absolutely right. But offer enough seats and your own revenue management software will tell you to keep the prices low enough to fill them.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Why not?

If you lower unit cost and increase the total amount of units offered, you can actually make more total profit. Enough indeed to overcome the subsidies taken up today and maybe enough profit to make investment worthwhile. This is exactly how some of the profitable conventional and HSR lines in the world work.

That's only true of the additional trains/seats are covering their marginal costs and covering their marginal costs by such a ridiculously wide margin that they can also cover all of the fixed costs and their return on capital.

Exactly which conventional rail services are sufficiently profitable that they cover both their operating and capital costs? How many of those have population profiles similar to the Corridor?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is exactly why there’s a big push for rail electrification on in most OECD countries.

Which ones? Even in Europe many lines still run on diesel. Cost and efficiency savings may well cover the electrification operating costs but it is by no means a given and would be the kind of thing that should be included in a feasibility study.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The problem with VIA’s “labour intensive” operation is the fact that productivity is low because they aren’t running enough trains. HFR should result with only a slight increase in personnel overhead, but a massive increase in pax-km. And it is that increase that should facilitate both profit and better late booking prices.

Via's labour insensitivity has a lot to do with the fact that Via thinks it is an airline and staffs its trains and stations like that.

Tickets are checked multiple times, there are many staff in the stations and on the trains.

Maybe they are constrained by outdated government requirements, but a Northern European train has hardly any staff on board. And minimal staff at the stations.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That's only true of the additional trains/seats are covering their marginal costs and covering their marginal costs by such a ridiculously wide margin that they can also cover all of the fixed costs and their return on capital.

Exactly which conventional rail services are sufficiently profitable that they cover both their operating and capital costs? How many of those have population profiles similar to the Corridor?

There's quite a few railways in densely populated regions (like Rhine-Ruhr, Kanto, and the Israeli coastal plain) that make an operating profit but even then I'm not sure they could pay for their own capital costs.

Projects like these require public investment. VIA's business case should consider whether it makes for the federal government to invest in it.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Via's labour insensitivity has a lot to do with the fact that Via thinks it is an airline and staffs its trains and stations like that.

Tickets are checked multiple times, there are many staff in the stations and on the trains.

Maybe they are constrained by outdated government requirements, but a Northern European train has hardly any staff on board. And minimal staff at the stations.

This is something VIA definitely needs to look at. HFR could present a golden opportunity to downsize staffing without causing labour unrest, by allowing the existing staff to be spread more thinly among an additional number of trains.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The time saving will be achieved by not having to slow down, stop, embark and disembark passengers at Ottawa's two stations. It is not just a distance consideration.

The simplest way to avoid having to “slow down, stop, embark and disembark passengers at Ottawa's two stations” is to simply not stop at these stations. This will maybe save you 5 minutes per station, which means that 4:35h (instead of 4:45h) is the time to beat with your “bypass”…

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Also, HSR upgrades will likely take place in the lesser populated areas first, where there are fewer restrictions on upgrading and rerouting the track and fewer problems in accommodating neighbouring populations.

This does not change the fact that any investment you put into the Winchester Subdivision west of Monkland will be made obsolete the moment HSR gets built, as you won’t be able to beat the travel time via Ottawa in a 300 km/h fast HSR scenario without upgrading your bypass to a speed well beyond 177 km/h (110 mph), i.e. a speed which makes “grade separations” the single-most expensive item on Ecotrain’s cost calculation.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I believe that a 30 minute speed improvement between Montreal and Toronto beyond current HFR plans through Ottawa will make the route that much more attractive and more competitive with the airlines. The current proposal makes Ottawa-Toronto quite competitive with the airlines, not so much Montreal-Toronto.

We’ve now reached the point where we need to talk about “generalized journey time” (GJT), which is basically the travel time perceived by the passenger and converts all other factors affecting ridership (transfers, headways between departures offered, delays and the condition/comfort of the rolling stock) into travel time as travel time penalties. Whereas travel time indeed only decreases by 19 minutes (or 6.2%) from 5:04 to 4:45 hours (the smallest decrease - in nominal and absolute figures - for any of the four major routes served by HFR), the frequency improvement from 6 trains per day (I’ve assumed 15 operating hours when calculating headways: e.g. from 5am to 8pm) to (let’s assume) hourly departures represents a further 36 minutes GJT saved – for a total saving of 55 minutes (or 14.5%), which is still the lowest for all 4 routes, but still a substantial improvement (almost one whole hour) in time-competitiveness over the other modes (car, bus, airplane):

Compiled from: travel time values provided by VIA Rail and GJT values for service headways provided within the Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Also, I could see all Montreal-Toronto trains being express skipping Ottawa. I don't see any advantage to passengers making the whole trip for them to travel into Ottawa.

Maybe you do see them now that you’ve learned about GJT and the impact of headways on it. The order size of 16 additional trainsets in the event that HFR goes ahead might be sufficient to provide hourly service on the TRTO-OTTW-MTRL route, but probably not if TRTO-OTTW, TRTO-MTRL and OTTW-MTRL are all separate services. Since choosing a headway of 2 hours adds 24 minutes of GJT compared to a headway of 1 hour, the travel time you need to beat with your bypass decreases to 4:21 hours. Reducing travel time from 84 to at most 60 minutes (i.e. by at least 24 minutes) over a distance of 146 km translates to an average speed of at least 146 km/h (90.7 mph), which means that even though you might be able to grade-separate the entire Winchester Subdivision to match the GJT of hourly HFR service via Ottawa, a modest improvement of only 10 minutes beyond that would bring the required average speed to 175.2 km/h (108.9 mph), which would make such costly investments necessary, while becoming obsolete the moment we have HSR…

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This is the same as today where some trains between Montreal and Toronto go through Ottawa with a considerable time penalty. Who would choose this? Not many I expect.

Except that the detour via Ottawa currently adds 97 km (633 vs. 539 km) and 88 minutes (6:32 vs. 5:04 hours) to the schedule, while with HFR, that difference will shrink to 41 km (580 km), while travel time will actually become 19 minutes (4:45 hours) shorter than today. I also challenge you to find any precedent for building a 146 km long High(er)-Speed rail segment, which has no purpose other than bypassing one single city – a city which happens to be the national capital and the fifth-largest metropolitan agglomeration with 1.3 million inhabitants…

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As I said, this would be a natural progression if HFR really takes off to offer a yet further enhanced service that does not require very expensive HSR spending.

As per my last paragraph, it does require expensive almost-HSR spending, which becomes obsolete the moment that HSR arrives in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal Corridor. It is not a coincidence that every single HSR study aimed at consolidating the passenger flows between Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto onto one single passenger service serving all free cities: it’s the only way to serve this Corridor economically and to unlock the economies of scale (e.g. decreases in unit-costs) we’ve been discussing here…

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Now, this may all change if they want to upgrade portions of the track from Smiths Falls to Montreal to HSR. As we all know, VIA owns the old CPR right of way between Ottawa and Rigaud for this purpose. I think this a completely separate project above and beyond HFR.

Even though it was without any doubt prudent to preserve this ROW for a possible return of passenger rail services, the Ecotrain study (Deliverable 5, p.28) discarded the Corridor with the following explanation:

The ex-CP M&O Subdivision (used as a composite representative route for the 200+/- km/h and as an alternative for the 300+/- km/h options) was abandoned between Rigaud and Ottawa. It has since been sold by CP and transformed into a recreational path (for cyclists and pedestrians) on most of its length.
Transforming it back into a railway line would certainly not prove very popular. Considering the amount and importance of public protest to be expected from such an action, the resultant difficulty that would be encountered in securing its use for HSR, and given that other better option exist, it was agreed with the Technical Committee that this right-of-way would not be carried forward as a representative route in the present study.

[lrt's friend]

The simplest way to avoid having to “slow down, stop, embark and disembark passengers at Ottawa's two stations” is to simply not stop at these stations. This will maybe save you 5 minutes per station, which means that 4:35h (instead of 4:45h) is the time to beat with your “bypass”…

I do think that a 5 minute stopping time particularly at the main Ottawa VIA station is pretty optimistic, however, having taken the train several times, trains do run quite slowly from Barrhaven to Ottawa Station and again through to Walkley Road. This will occur regardless of stopping at both Ottawa stations or not. This is why your 19 minute saving is so very pessimistic. VIA schedules list Ottawa to Fallowfield as a 25 minute travel time alone.

As I pointed out in my comments, my suggested express service would only come when we go beyond the proposed hourly service. If we get beyond this, because of demand, we still need to make further track improvements. This applies whether trains stop in Ottawa or not.

So the choice will be to further upgrade track via Ottawa (more double tracking including in urban areas) or using the Winchester subdivision? Guess, which is shorter?

Also, moving to a single hourly schedule (Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal) doesn't buy us much considering we expect ridership to grow from 3M to 10M. At present we have 12 trains per day to Montreal from Ottawa and Toronto and 16 to Toronto from the other two cities.

On the topic of HSR, you rule out the abandoned route via Rigaud, and assume the current route via Ottawa is the best choice. But it is highly unlikely that HSR upgrades will occur within urban Ottawa. The question then remains after ruling out the Ottawa-Rigaud route, then the next best choice may be the Winchester subdivision bypassing Ottawa altogether to give biggest competitive improvement on the Montreal-Toronto route. This does not leave Ottawa entirely out in the cold.

HSR does not mean that an entire route needs upgrading all at once. I have experienced this in Europe in rural areas between Dresden and Berlin, and it seems that this is the most likely way to bring HSR to Canada. Build HSR in sections starting in rural areas first.

So let's say we upgrade the Winchester subdivision to HSR, and we upgrade other parts of the route through to Peterborough, Ottawa passengers still receive significant HSR benefits even if the track from Smiths Falls to Ottawa and Ottawa to Monkland are not upgraded to that standard. This does not preclude HSR upgrades at a later date when ridership on the corridor is well above 10M. At that point, we might be looking at a 100 year time frame, but when will we be building even the first section of HSR? It isn't coming soon.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I do think that a 5 minute stopping time particularly at the main Ottawa VIA station is pretty optimistic, however, having taken the train several times, trains do run quite slowly from Barrhaven to Ottawa Station and again through to Walkley Road. This will occur regardless of stopping at both Ottawa stations or not. This is why your 19 minute saving is so very pessimistic. VIA schedules list Ottawa to Fallowfield as a 25 minute travel time alone.

I'll start by saying the irony of having lrt's friend (a resident of Ottawa) fight for a train that bypasses Ottawa and Urban_Sky (a resident of Montreal) argue against it is not lost on me. Although I do see lrt's friend's points, I tend to agree with Urban_Sky on this one. Having three routes between Toronto and Montreal seems excessive (regional along lakeshore, HFR through Ottawa and HSR bypassing Ottawa).

If VIA did want to run some Montreal-Toronto express trains (that bypass Ottawa station), a much cheaper solution would be to obtain CN's track in the Walkley Yard, which they have announced that they plan to discontinue. It is true it would only save about 5km, but it is only 10km of track that would need to be upgraded and it is already largely grade separated.

I suspect only a couple morning and evening trains would do this. Hardly worth the expense of acquiring and upgrading 146 km of active track to save 34km (?), but possibly worth the cost for 10 km of track that is being discontinued anyway to save 5km.

Also, one of the reasons it takes 22 min to travel the 15km (an average speed of 41 km/h) is that it doesn't have much time to build up speed and not worth the fuel to try and do so. Without either stop, it could travel the distance in a lot less time.

As I pointed out in my comments, my suggested express service would only come when we go beyond the proposed hourly service. If we get beyond this, because of demand, we still need to make further track improvements. This applies whether trains stop in Ottawa or not.

So the choice will be to further upgrade track via Ottawa (more double tracking including in urban areas) or using the Winchester subdivision?

There is a third option, longer trains. If they do decide to add more trains, it is cheaper to incrementally upgrade the tracks they already using than it would be to obtain and upgrade even more tracks as initially they would only want to add one or two more trains at a time. With only a couple extra trains the choices are:

• Only run a couple trains a day along the Winchester subdivision (hardly worth the cost), or
• Cut the number of trains through Ottawa, decreasing the frequency through it and killing the gains from having high frequency.

Guess, which is shorter?

The Winchester sub. route would be shorter, but I just don't see the benefits outweighing the costs.

Also, moving to a single hourly schedule (Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal) doesn't buy us much considering we expect ridership to grow from 3M to 10M. At present we have 12 trains per day to Montreal from Ottawa and Toronto and 16 to Toronto from the other two cities.

I think you are missing the point. Currently we have:

• 6 trains between Montreal & Ottawa (including 1 train that continues to Toronto),
• 7 trains between Montreal & Toronto (1 via Ottawa westbound), and
• 10 trains between Ottawa & Toronto

While one could currently connect in Ottawa when traveling between Montreal and Ottawa, the schedules don't work well for that, so that really isn't an option.

If there were 15 trains a day between Montreal and Toronto via Ottawa, you would effectively have (ignoring the possibility of early morning trains starting in Ottawa and late night trains ending in Ottawa):

• 15 trains between Montreal & Ottawa,
• 15 trains between Montreal & Toronto, and
• 15 trains between Ottawa & Toronto

A significant improvement in service frequency on all three routes without a significant change in the amount of equipment required.

On the topic of HSR, you rule out the abandoned route via Rigaud, and assume the current route via Ottawa is the best choice. But it is highly unlikely that HSR upgrades will occur within urban Ottawa. The question then remains after ruling out the Ottawa-Rigaud route, then the next best choice may be the Winchester subdivision bypassing Ottawa altogether to give biggest competitive improvement on the Montreal-Toronto route. This does not leave Ottawa entirely out in the cold.

Maybe this could happen one day, but putting HSR on the Winchester sub. would be very low on the pecking order. Only once there is demand for hourly service on all three main origin-destination pairs, independent of each other, would this be feasible.

HSR does not mean that an entire route needs upgrading all at once. I have experienced this in Europe in rural areas between Dresden and Berlin, and it seems that this is the most likely way to bring HSR to Canada. Build HSR in sections starting in rural areas first.

Agreed. I have experienced it many times in Europe (Amsterdam to Munich for example).

So let's say we upgrade the Winchester subdivision to HSR, and we upgrade other parts of the route through to Peterborough, Ottawa passengers still receive significant HSR benefits even if the track from Smiths Falls to Ottawa and Ottawa to Monkland are not upgraded to that standard. This does not preclude HSR upgrades at a later date when ridership on the corridor is well above 10M. At that point, we might be looking at a 100 year time frame, but when will we be building even the first section of HSR? It isn't coming soon.

Maybe not to HSR, but the Smiths Falls Sub will probably be a high priority for further upgrades as it will be shared with trains from Kingston to Ottawa. With 200km/h trains travelling along it one day, the argument for using the Winchester Sub becomes weaker.

[Truenorth00]

I think people are losing sight of how demand patterns will change with HFR. The two greatest increases in demand will center in Ottawa:

1) Ottawa-Montreal will become an exurban commute over time so this becomes effectively suburban rail service.

2) Ottawa-Toronto is competitive with everything but air. And will loose to air by 1.5 hrs. This should make it a popular alternative for quite a few business travelers.

These routes will see massive growth. And that's why the largest frequency boosts are going there.

[acottawa]

I think you’re drinking the Potvin Kool-Aid. Who wants to commute 3+ hours a day? I am sure the odd person would, or somebody who primarily works from home, but that would not appeal to most office workers.

[lrt's friend]

A significant improvement in service frequency on all three routes without a significant change in the amount of equipment required.

The reason for my original comment on this topic is that the number of trains overall does not increase a great deal. Instead, they are focused on a common route that does improve service to the three (4 if we assume Quebec is included) main cities. However, with ridership growth expected to triple, we will still need a lot more equipment. To accommodate triple ridership, trains will need to be double or triple in length compared today. Current planned train replacement are designed to maintain the status quo.

Maybe this could happen one day, but putting HSR on the Winchester sub. would be very low on the pecking order. Only once there is demand for hourly service on all three main origin-destination pairs, independent of each other, would this be feasible.

My comments on use of the Winchester subdivision were based on that kind of assumption. After we had implemented HFR and reached 10M ridership, the plan to take this to the next step and say 15M ridership, then we need to consider methods to speed up service further. While service under the HFR plan will likely increase ridership substantially for Ottawa-Toronto, Ottawa-Montreal and Montreal-Quebec, the weak link remains Toronto-Montreal. We need to find ways to make rail on that pair, the biggest city pair in the country more attractive.

As an Ottawa resident, I am not trying to put down service into Ottawa. I am gung-ho for HFR and potential other improvements, and Ottawa will be the biggest beneficiary of these plans as currently designed. Instead, I am looking at what will be best overall for VIA in the long term and to make the service more financially viable. Making the Montreal-Toronto route more competitive time-wise ultimately could have the biggest pay back in ridership growth because of the size of the two markets.

[lrt's friend]

If HFR results in trains that are double or triple in length, would we see the return of dining cars? It seems to me, that at some point, would it be cheaper to focus dining service in one or two cars than having to offer some sort food service in each of 10+ cars? Also, with time improvements, the number of business travelers will increase at least at the same pace as overall ridership, which will put more demand on expected food service through business class.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The reason for my original comment on this topic is that the number of trains overall does not increase a great deal. Instead, they are focused on a common route that does improve service to the three (4 if we assume Quebec is included) main cities. However, with ridership growth expected to triple, we will still need a lot more equipment. To accommodate triple ridership, trains will need to be double or triple in length compared today. Current planned train replacement are designed to maintain the status quo.

The current order has the option for 16 additional trainsets (above the 32 ordered to replace the existing fleet) if HFR is approved, so that would be an improvement over the status quo.

Secondly, don't forget the current trains also service the Lakeshore (I gather a lot of passengers get on and off at Kingston especially). With HFR, the Lakeshore will be serviced by different routes, making more room on HFR trains for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal passengers.

Thirdly, with reduced travel times (and more reliable service so that they can count on the equipment being there on time), they can get better utalization of the equipment, getting in one (or maybe 2) extra runs per trainset per day. They can also better match the frequency to equipment availability, not when they are allowed to use the tracks (which currently forces employees to twiddle their thumbs, waiting for their next departure).

My comments on use of the Winchester subdivision were based on that kind of assumption. After we had implemented HFR and reached 10M ridership, the plan to take this to the next step and say 15M ridership, then we need to consider methods to speed up service further. While service under the HFR plan will likely increase ridership substantially for Ottawa-Toronto, Ottawa-Montreal and Montreal-Quebec, the weak link remains Toronto-Montreal. We need to find ways to make rail on that pair, the biggest city pair in the country more attractive.

The Montreal-Toronto travel time will become what Ottawa-Toronto currently is, and that has proven to be very successful with increased frequency. Yes using the Winchester sub. could further reduce travel times, but I am not convinced the cost/benefit analysis would work out.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If HFR results in trains that are double or triple in length, would we see the return of dining cars? It seems to me, that at some point, would it be cheaper to focus dining service in one or two cars than having to offer some sort food service in each of 10+ cars? Also, with time improvements, the number of business travelers will increase at least at the same pace as overall ridership, which will put more demand on expected food service through business class.

Dinning cars with table service, like you see on long distance trains? Not likely.

A snack or bar car with a counter that sells food and beverages, and has a few tables to eat at would be more likely. I'm not sure if it makes sense to purchase and haul such a car that produces minimal revenue, unless it can be proven to make the train more desirable and thus increase ridership.

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The current order has the option for 16 additional trainsets (above the 32 ordered to replace the existing fleet) if HFR is approved, so that would be an improvement over the status quo.

Secondly, don't forget the current trains also service the Lakeshore (I gather a lot of passengers get on and off at Kingston especially). With HFR, the Lakeshore will be serviced by different routes, making more room on HFR trains for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal passengers.

Thirdly, with reduced travel times (and more reliable service so that they can count on the equipment being there on time), they can get better utalization of the equipment, getting in one (or maybe 2) extra runs per trainset per day. They can also better match the frequency to equipment availability, not when they are allowed to use the tracks (which currently forces employees to twiddle their thumbs, waiting for their next departure).



The Montreal-Toronto travel time will become what Ottawa-Toronto currently is, and that has proven to be very successful with increased frequency. Yes using the Winchester sub. could further reduce travel times, but I am not convinced the cost/benefit analysis would work out.



Dinning cars with table service, like you see on long distance trains? Not likely.

A snack or bar car with a counter that sells food and beverages, and has a few tables to eat at would be more likely. I'm not sure if it makes sense to purchase and haul such a car that produces minimal revenue, unless it can be proven to make the train more desirable and thus increase ridership.

Is there an automated version? Like a fancy vending machine for a train? Given the types of drinks/snacks that get handed out on planes/trains you really don't need to pay a person to do it.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

Is there an automated version? Like a fancy vending machine for a train? Given the types of drinks/snacks that get handed out on planes/trains you really don't need to pay a person to do it.

I have been on trains in Scandinavia with vending machines. I could imagine it running afoul of Canada’s puritanical approach to alcohol though.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

Is there an automated version? Like a fancy vending machine for a train? Given the types of drinks/snacks that get handed out on planes/trains you really don't need to pay a person to do it.

If the train is several cars long, I doubt people would be as motivated to go to a vending machine, vs employees bringing food like on a plane. With the current ticket verification system where employees have to scan them while walking along the aisles, those employees have to be on the train anyway. Them walking along selling snacks, pouring fresh tea/coffee, and freshly warmed food, along with their sweet personalities, is probably a great way use of their ambassadorship to attract/maintain ridership.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Buggys

If the train is several cars long, I doubt people would be as motivated to go to a vending machine, vs employees bringing food like on a plane. With the current ticket verification system where employees have to scan them while walking along the aisles, those employees have to be on the train anyway. Them walking along selling snacks, pouring fresh tea/coffee, and freshly warmed food, along with their sweet personalities, is probably a great way use of their ambassadorship to attract/maintain ridership.

Ticket checkers and coffee pourers are different jobs on Via trains.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is hard to see where a pension plan or other investor could see profit potential in HFR, with or without the CIB. Via simply can’t charge high enough fares to cover operating costs, capital costs plus profit for the investor. There are just too many transportation options in the corridor.
If the federal government wants this it is going to have to pay for it directly.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Investors, particularly conservative investors like pension funds are looking for a fairly high certainty of profit, not something that is within the realm of possibility.
Also, even if it covers operating costs, there are still capital costs before a profit can be seen.
Very few passenger railways anywhere make a profit, so predictions that this will be an exception need further explanation.

Excuse me for my ignorance, but if a project must be financially self-sufficient without any subsidies in order to get financed through the CIB or receive funding from private investors, then how did the REM get funded, which depends on an operating subsidy of 72 cents per passenger-kilometer? Had VIA Rail received that level of subsidies in 2017 for its Corridor East (i.e. Quebec-Montreal-Toronto) operations, the resulting subsidy payment of $755.6 million ([652,090,156 passenger-miles = 1,049,437,380 passenger-km]*$0.72) would have exceeded the operating costs for its entire (!) network ($630.9 million).

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I get that. What I was expressing was a hope on upgradability. IE. Don't pick an alignment where speed can't be increased through further investment.
What I am hoping for here is that the success of HFR allows for further capital investment that increases speed. So for example, adding a billion in upgrades and grade separations could create a 100 km stretch where speeds go up to 250 kph from 177 kph, saving 10 mins.

Have a look at the table below:

Source: FRA (2011, p.20)

• If you refer to above table, the dilemma is as follows:
  
• Everything until 177 km/h (110 mph, Tiers 0/IA/IB) is relatively straightforward,
• Level crossings: whereas TC regulations [insert link] outright ban them beyond 177 km/h (110 mph), FRA regulations [insert link] allow a work-around in the 178-200 km/h (111-125 mph) band (Tier IC), but the necessary investments into "impenetrable barriers" under FRA regulations will become useless the moment you upgrade beyond 200 km/h (125 mph).
• Corridor-sharing with freight is still allowed beyond 200 km/h (125 mph), but only until 240 km/h (150 mph, Tier II), so moving beyond that speed requires a dedicated HSR Corridor which again renders prior investment useless.
• Track alignment: according to the Ecotrain Study, 200 km/h requires a minimum radius of 2,500 meters (2,000 meters with tilting trains), whereas 300 km/h requires a minimum radius of 6,000 meters. Investments in less generous track realignments therefore risks becoming useless when design speed is increased towards 300 km/h.

For all above reasons, investing in any infrastructure to reach speeds beyond 177 km/h only makes sense if you make sure that the investment is HSR-ready, i.e. compatible with a later upgrade to 300 km/h. For exactly that reason, I would strongly object upgrading any rail segments beyond 177 km/h, unless they overlap with Ecotrain's E-300 alignment and as far as I see that is only the case for parts of the Trois-Rivières Subdivision, Montreal-De Beujeu, Casselman West-Ottawa-Smiths Falls North and Port Hope West-Toronto:

Note: ROW sections eventually shared with HSR are highlighted in green, whereas existing and new ROW sections which will not be eventually shared with HSR are shown in yellow and red, respectively. Originally posted on Urban Toronto and reposted here as #1182.
Compiled with: distances obtained from historic CN/CP timetables or measured with Google Earth and routings obtained from The Globe And Mail (for HFR) and the Ecotrain Study (Deliverable 5).

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

My real hope here is that the Ottawa-Montreal stretch improves from 1:20 hrs to < 1 hr making Ottawa-Montreal far more commutable, while benefiting Toronto-Ottawa trips. I get that this can't be done at launch. But I hope that it can be achieved with additional capital over time.

Basic maths reveals that you can’t cover 180 km in less than 1 hour without exceeding 200 km/h (125 mph, i.e. the maximum speed of the current fleet), which means you will need HSR equipment to reach such a speed and you won’t be able to justify such a dedicated high-performance fleet without securing the funding for such infrastructure at the same time. You are already calling for HSR, not for a step towards it…

Originally Posted by acottawa

Just a little back of the envelope math.
Let’s say they reduce operating expenses per pax by about 25% to $80.
Let’s say they increase the number of passengers to 4M from 3.1M.

Yeah right, VIA increased its ridership between 2014 and 2017 by 30.5% (or 11 times population growth, if extrapolating from the annualized growth of the combined population of Ontario and Quebec between 2011 and 2016) while investing “only” $359.1 in capital expenditure (and only part of that in infrastructure), but investing 11 times that amount in a dedicated infrastructure will surely increase ridership by only 29.0% by 2030 (or just 2.3 times population growth)…^^

Originally Posted by acottawa

Let’s say that the CPP is willing to take a low return on capital of 5% ($200M).
Each ticket sold would need to cover $50 in capital return plus $80 in expenses. Current revenue is $72 per pax, so ticket prices would need to almost double without hurting demand, which seems extremely unlikely.

I struggle to understand what’s so shocking about a business plan becoming unviable if you arbitrarily remove more than half of its projected ridership. If you take the 9.9 million projected by VIA, then your per-passenger contribution for capital costs decreases from $50 to $20.20, thus a total operating cost of $100.20 per passenger or 140% rather than 181% of the current fare...

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is a 35 minute improvement in travel time on the Montreal-Toronto route and an hour on the Ottawa-Toronto route (if Via’s estimates are accurate). I don’t think there is any precedent for time improvements of that magnitude leading to doubling of ridership.

I believe that we’ve also reached the point where we need to talk about Generalized Journey Time (GJT), but before we can do that we need to somehow distribute VIA’s ridership from Corridor segments to the individual routes: The least arbitrary way I could find was to reallocate the passenger miles provided in the 2017 Annual Report (by multiplying the “Shortfall” figure with the “subsidy per passenger-mile”) according to the train mileage calculated from the 2017/05/29 timetable (i.e. the timetable which was valid for the largest part of 2017).

The second step is to adjust the ridership by the average of the annualized growth rates observed between 2011 and 2016 in the respective CMAs at both ends, which increases the passenger-mileage by 14.6% on average (which happens to achieve already half of the entire growth rate you only seem capable of imaging).


Source: Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2018, p.23)

Step three is to multiply the change in generalized journey time (see my table in my previous post) and multiply it with the applicable elasticity: As you can see in above table, the elasticity for intercity rail travel demand in respect to its travel time is -1.58, which means that demand will decrease for every 1% increase in travel time by 1.58%, while it will increase by the same margin for every 1% decrease in travel time. This means that travel demand can be expected to increase by between 22.9% (Toronto-Montreal) and 61.1% (Montreal-Quebec) for an overall increase of 38.5% in the Corridor East or 32.6% over the entire Corridor (note that GJT stays unchanged for Southwestern Ontario). This means that the combined effect of population growth and reductions in GJT on passenger mileage equals an increase by between 14.7% for Southwestern Ontario (i.e. the pure population growth effect) and 79.5% (Montreal-Quebec) for a total growth of 58.6% on the Corridor East and 51.9% on the entire Corridor. Similarly, dividing the passenger-mileage by the average trip length in 2017 yields the same 58.6% as increase in passenger figures on the Corridor East, but (due to the longer trip lengths on the Corridor East) a slightly lower 47.8% for the entire Corridor – for an increase in total passenger count on the Corridor East from 3.1 million in 2017 to 5.0 million in 2030 and total Corridor ridership from 4.1 to 6.1 million:

Note: The respective growth rates for Southwestern Ontario (SWO) are taken from Toronto (CMA) as start of route and Ontario (Province) as end of route.
Compiled from: VIA Rail Annual Report 2017, VIA Rail's travel time projections for HFR, Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook, and Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2018).

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You are looking at this wrong. It's not just trip time improvement. It's a massive upgrade in reliability, a boost in frequency and substantially more seats offered.

Exactly, and that’s why above figures can only act as a sanity check to prove @acottawa’s ridership growth projections as over-pessimistic, while they say little about how realistic VIA’s ridership projection of 9.9 million is as we would have to quantify the effect of the other factors influencing generalized journey time and thus demand:

• Operations quality: on-time performance, travel time predictability
• Service quality: on-board and at-the-place services offered
• Rolling stock: ambience, comfort, convenience and amenities offered by the rolling stock
• Station experience: ambience, comfort, convenience and amenities offered by the station facilities
• Boarding experience: ease and convenience offered during the boarding process
• Booking experience: ease and convenience offered during the booking process
• Pricing: pricing level and product variants

Whereas my subjective impression is that service quality is already very high, I believe that most other areas identified above could, should and will be improved as a consequence of HFR or other investment programs already underway (new fleet, new reservation system, Toronto Union Station vitalisation, …) and that they will have a significantly positive effect on GJT and thus ridership. At the same time, there are some growth factors which are beyond the scope of GJT, but should generate additional ridership:

• Capacity constraints: availability of matching rolling stock availability (in-fleet as well as in-service) to demand (e.g. new fleet will allow increased utilisation and includes an option which would substantially increase capacity)
• Markets currently not served (e.g. Peterborough and Trois-Rivières) or only indirectly (e.g. Laval)
• Changes in the competitive environment (e.g. highway congestion driving up car and coach travel times or airlines substituting short-haul flights by sending their connecting passengers by rail in order to free up airport slots for more valuable flights)

I’m far from expecting anyone to trust studies they so far haven’t been able to even look at, but I hope that it becomes clear that there are indeed "precedents" (elasticises are derived from real-world experiences in countless studies), which suggest that the changes in population size, travel time and headways alone would already explain a growth of total Corridor ridership from 4.1 to 6.1 million, while I provided a few factors which should grow ridership further (though I'm unfortunately not able to quantify these effects). Hopefully, this gives you all a better idea of how the studies which are or have been conducted might be able to back up the claims which have been made regarding HFR…