Rail services in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor

[milomilo]

If anyone needs a reminder of how behind Canada is with rail, here's a video of what the UK is building, a country that itself is far behind where it should be. It's super expensive, but it's also super cool and will be worth it:

• Video Link

And what already exists is still way better than what Canada will get even with HFR:



And this is a country which has chronically underinvested in its infrastructure.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by roger1818

It isn't just the construction costs that are significantly higher, the operating costs are also significantly higher. There are two main causes:

But ticket prices are not set according to construction cost, we are not the USSR. They will be set according to supply and demand, like airlines.

Originally Posted by roger1818

When using double track, it is a myth that higher speed trains have a higher capacity than lower speed trains (single track is different, but you can't have HSR on single track). The capacity of a line is the capacity of each train times the number of trains you run. With double track, the minimum interval between trains is based on the stopping distance, and the faster the train is traveling, the more time/distance it needs to stop. Higher speeds will allow better utilization of your equipment, but that is different from capacity.

In any non North American country the idea of a single track mainline passenger railway is preposterous, in the UK they barely exist outside of the most rural routes in Scotland. Double track is just the normal standard, and if your railway had such poor demand that you could service it with such inferior infrastructure, then it would be fair to question the utility of such a project.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by milomilo

But ticket prices are not set according to construction cost, we are not the USSR.

Did you even read my post? I said it isn’t just the construction costs.

They will be set according to supply and demand, like airlines.

Maybe, but if the tickets weren’t expensive, they would have no hope of coming even close to covering HSR’s high operating costs.

In any non North American country the idea of a single track mainline passenger railway is preposterous, in the UK they barely exist outside of the most rural routes in Scotland. Double track is just the normal standard, and if your railway had such poor demand that you could service it with such inferior infrastructure, then it would be fair to question the utility of such a project.

This tangent is even more evidence that you didn’t read my post.

[milomilo]

I read your post. What I said is true. The ticket price will be set according to supply and demand, and if that price is less than the operating cost then we'll either subsidise it or not run it.

If demand for a slow rail line between Canada's largest cities is so poor that it only justifies a single track railway, then that does beg the question why it would be worth doing. I say this as someone strongly in favour of investing in rail. But if demand is that weak, we might as well synthesise jet fuel with wind power and pay the airlines to do it or just buy some electric buses.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Did you even read my post? I said it isn’t just the construction costs.
....
Maybe, but if the tickets weren’t expensive, they would have no hope of coming even close to covering HSR’s high operating costs.

I'd be careful assuming that High Speed Rail is expensive to operate because of higher fuel costs. Yes, going faster takes a lot more energy. But electricity is a lot cheaper than diesel. And unlike your personal vehicle, going faster also means reduced staff wages and higher asset utilization. Yes, maintenance is more expensive and so overall costs are higher. But the per seat-mile costs don't always work out prohibitively expensive.

The flip side is demand too. Americans fill up the Acela. And every don't have our gas prices or airfares or even our weather.

Setting aside definitions, I'm not even sure you need 300 kph HSR to be competitive in the Corridor. As Urban_Sky and others have pointed out the difference between 200 kph and 300 kph isn't necessarily substantial on construction costs. But it's there. The Ontario HSR study found a 30% difference outside the main urban and suburban areas between 250 kph and 300 kph. The difference inside the urban areas was massive though (367%). And for Toronto-Peterborough-Ottawa-Montreal clocking in at 625 km long, 250kph would be sufficient. Toronto-Ottawa could be gotten down to ~2.25 hrs. And Toronto-Montreal to ~3.5 hrs. Fast enough for substantial diversion of air travelers.

[acottawa]

Average speed and max speed are not the same thing. In Europe lines operate about 45% of their design speed.

https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eca/spec...il-19-2018/en/

Realistically a 250 kph design speed would probably have an average speed closer to the Acela (about 110 kph). Maybe 3.5 hours to Ottawa, 5 to Montreal.

Projects to raise average speeds tend to be super expensive because they often involve tunnelling in urban areas or under geographical obstacles. The Bologna tunnel or the HS2 Chiltern tunnels.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I read your post. What I said is true. The ticket price will be set according to supply and demand, and if that price is less than the operating cost then we'll either subsidise it or not run it.

If demand for a slow rail line between Canada's largest cities is so poor that it only justifies a single track railway, then that does beg the question why it would be worth doing. I say this as someone strongly in favour of investing in rail. But if demand is that weak, we might as well synthesise jet fuel with wind power and pay the airlines to do it or just buy some electric buses.

That's a good point.

I think that, with decent signaling, a single track rail line that only serves short passenger trains can probably accommodate the frequency that VIA plans to throw at it as long as there are frequent passing tracks in certain places.

It's not a good comparison, but the Trillium Line O-train was able to run at ~15 minute (12?) frequencies on a single track with just a few select areas for passing.

However, there are other issues with the HFR alignment that need to be resolved before I can take it very seriously.

For starters, on the Toronto side, what is their plan to access the CP line to Peterborough? There is the semi-abandoned Don Branch, which is owned by Metrolinx, with plans for it to be used for a layover facility for its RER trains, and a century-old abandoned viaduct that needs to be rebuilt. Once it gets to the CP mainline, it has to cross to the north side if it is to make it to the Havelock sub without interference from CP freights (on its mainline). This is almost certainly going to be a grade separation, unless VIA wants its trains to wait around for CP freights to clear, similar to its problem in Smiths Falls now.

Then, in Peterborough the line goes across dozens of grade crossings and across the very active Trent Canal on an aging swing bridge with low clearance (its default position is to allow boats to pass right now). I honestly think Peterborough needs to be bypassed on an entirely new alignment with a station on the outskirts.

And then there are some hairpin turns through the Canadian shield west of Perth that will slow down the train. These will have to be straightened out and some will need blasting.

Anyway, I still believe that there is a need to build a separate passenger rail line to connect Tor-Ott-Mtl, but I'm not sure that the HFR alignment and proposal is as much of a slam dunk as VIA is selling it. I wonder if the same money put toward building a track paralleling the Kingston sub (CN mainline along the lake, and where VIA currently runs) with strategic grade separations from freight traffic here and there (Smiths Falls) would be a bigger bang for the buck.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Average speed and max speed are not the same thing.

I'm aware of the difference. But in our case, we also have much longer stretches of nothingness, lending itself to much faster running, limited by infrastructure. Average speeds should be higher in our case than Europe or the Acela Corridor. I would imagine that most of the Peterborough-Smiths Falls stretch can be designed for max speed, limited entirely by capital constraints. That's almost 200 km with maybe one stop in between.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Realistically a 250 kph design speed would probably have an average speed closer to the Acela (about 110 kph). Maybe 3.5 hours to Ottawa, 5 to Montreal.

Some very rough math:

Toronto-Peterborough: 120km @ 80 kph average
Peterborough-Smiths Falls: 190km @ 180 kph average
Smith's Falls-Ottawa: 70 km @ 80 kph average.
Montreal-Dorval-Ottawa: 180km @ 120 kph average

That would be 3.325 hrs for Toronto-Peterborough-Ottawa and 1.5 hrs for Ottawa-Dorval-Montreal. These are actually close to the times that are rumoured for HFR. Why you assume HSR with a fully grade separated corridor and lots of banked curves would run this slowly is beyond me. If the comparison is to Acela, I don't believe that's the best comparison to make. Nowhere does Acela have a 200 km stretch through wilderness and countryside without a stop.

300 kph HSR in our case would be able to get Toronto-Peterborough-Ottawa closer to 2.5 hrs. And Ottawa-Montreal closer to 1 hr. Increase the Toronto-Peterborough and Smiths Falls-Ottawa portions to 100 kph and the central portion to 250kph and you get 2.54 hrs. Limit stops on Ottawa-Montreal to Alexandria and Dorval and you could get average speeds up to 160-180 kph getting this portion to 1-1.25 hrs. Toronto-Montreal would be 3.67 hrs. 3:40 mins could be competitive against air with the right fare for many travelers.

[acottawa]

It depends how many curves, settlements and level crossings you want to eliminate. A map of the Havelock sub looks like a squiggly line in many places because the Victorian engineers prioritized avoiding obstacles over reducing the curve radius. It is certainly possible to cut a straight line through the wilderness, but that has a significant cost associated with it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It depends how many curves, settlements and level crossings you want to eliminate. A map of the Havelock sub looks like a squiggly line in many places because the Victorian engineers prioritized avoiding obstacles over reducing the curve radius. It is certainly possible to cut a straight line through the wilderness, but that has a significant cost associated with it.

Exactly as I said. Average speed for us is far more dependant on capital costs. In Europe and the US, the prevalence of built-up areas along their corridors increases demand for more stops (reducing average speeds) and drives up costs in other ways (more grade separation needed).

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

That's a good point.

I think that, with decent signaling, a single track rail line that only serves short passenger trains can probably accommodate the frequency that VIA plans to throw at it as long as there are frequent passing tracks in certain places.

It's not a good comparison, but the Trillium Line O-train was able to run at ~15 minute (12?) frequencies on a single track with just a few select areas for passing.

However, there are other issues with the HFR alignment that need to be resolved before I can take it very seriously.

For starters, on the Toronto side, what is their plan to access the CP line to Peterborough? There is the semi-abandoned Don Branch, which is owned by Metrolinx, with plans for it to be used for a layover facility for its RER trains, and a century-old abandoned viaduct that needs to be rebuilt. Once it gets to the CP mainline, it has to cross to the north side if it is to make it to the Havelock sub without interference from CP freights (on its mainline). This is almost certainly going to be a grade separation, unless VIA wants its trains to wait around for CP freights to clear, similar to its problem in Smiths Falls now.

Then, in Peterborough the line goes across dozens of grade crossings and across the very active Trent Canal on an aging swing bridge with low clearance (its default position is to allow boats to pass right now). I honestly think Peterborough needs to be bypassed on an entirely new alignment with a station on the outskirts.

And then there are some hairpin turns through the Canadian shield west of Perth that will slow down the train. These will have to be straightened out and some will need blasting.

Anyway, I still believe that there is a need to build a separate passenger rail line to connect Tor-Ott-Mtl, but I'm not sure that the HFR alignment and proposal is as much of a slam dunk as VIA is selling it. I wonder if the same money put toward building a track paralleling the Kingston sub (CN mainline along the lake, and where VIA currently runs) with strategic grade separations from freight traffic here and there (Smiths Falls) would be a bigger bang for the buck.

To emphasize, I do think we should build intercity rail. But it really shows how far behind and lacking in ambition Canada is that the lion's share of the intercity rail traffic in the entire country will be able to be supplied with just one single track railway. HFR is literally the absolute bare minimum we can muster ourselves to build, and it's still a hard sell.

It also exposes the lies we tell ourselves that building passenger rail will make the slightest difference to Canada's CO2 emissions. The % of journeys made in Canada that will change from a CO2 intensive mode to a somewhat less CO2 intensive mode with HFR will be insignificant.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Exactly as I said. Average speed for us is far more dependant on capital costs. In Europe and the US, the prevalence of built-up areas along their corridors increases demand for more stops (reducing average speeds) and drives up costs in other ways (more grade separation needed).

You’re assuming wilderness=low capital costs. That may be true in some places, but that part of eastern Ontario has a pretty challenging geography if you need to straighten curves, bypass or grade separate settled areas and reduce at grade crossings (to get the kind of average speeds you’re talking about).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

However, there are other issues with the HFR alignment that need to be resolved before I can take it very seriously.

For starters, on the Toronto side, what is their plan to access the CP line to Peterborough? There is the semi-abandoned Don Branch, which is owned by Metrolinx, with plans for it to be used for a layover facility for its RER trains, and a century-old abandoned viaduct that needs to be rebuilt. Once it gets to the CP mainline, it has to cross to the north side if it is to make it to the Havelock sub without interference from CP freights (on its mainline). This is almost certainly going to be a grade separation, unless VIA wants its trains to wait around for CP freights to clear, similar to its problem in Smiths Falls now.

Then, in Peterborough the line goes across dozens of grade crossings and across the very active Trent Canal on an aging swing bridge with low clearance (its default position is to allow boats to pass right now). I honestly think Peterborough needs to be bypassed on an entirely new alignment with a station on the outskirts.

And then there are some hairpin turns through the Canadian shield west of Perth that will slow down the train. These will have to be straightened out and some will need blasting.

Anyway, I still believe that there is a need to build a separate passenger rail line to connect Tor-Ott-Mtl, but I'm not sure that the HFR alignment and proposal is as much of a slam dunk as VIA is selling it. I wonder if the same money put toward building a track paralleling the Kingston sub (CN mainline along the lake, and where VIA currently runs) with strategic grade separations from freight traffic here and there (Smiths Falls) would be a bigger bang for the buck.

Yeah, even though cost estimates have gone up considerably, VIA has basically priced the thing (somewhere in the 5 million per km average cost) as if minimal interventions are required (some continuous weld track, new fencing, new signals, etc), basically an expanded version of the track improvement program from a decade ago. But their time estimates have some of the highest average speed to max ratios of any railway in the world (70% between Ottawa and Toronto), which in the normal world would require major capital investments for things like double tracking, removing at-grade crossings, removing curves, replacing bridges, etc.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

You’re assuming wilderness=low capital costs. That may be true in some places, but that part of eastern Ontario has a pretty challenging geography if you need to straighten curves, bypass or grade separate settled areas and reduce at grade crossings (to get the kind of average speeds you’re talking about).

I'm not assuming it's cheap at all. It's why I said, average speed is entirely a function of how much we're willing to spend. I am fully aware building a straight line through basically the Canadian Shield ain't going to be cheap. But it's a lot more feasible and can support higher speeds than what more settled and urbanized corridors face in Europe and the US.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

After all that, this country will still have slower passenger train service than half a century ago (Toronto-Montreal just under 5 hrs with HFR). Imagine, $4-7 billion and still can't beat the Turbo from the 70s (HFR is an 18-25% longer trip!).

You are cherry picking one train and totally dismissing the value of frequency of service. If you look at the October 1976 schedule (the first national schedule that combined CN and CP's services), on weekdays each way there were

• 2 turbo trains each way (4:10 for express* and 4:15 if it stopped in Kingston)
• 2 Rapido direct trains (4:55, with a stop in Kingston)
• the Cavalier (overnight and took 8 hours)
• 2 trains that had local service to Brocville and allowed a connection to trains from Ottawa (ranging from 5:35 to 5:55)

* all trains stopped at both Guildwood and Dorval.

So unless you wanted a train at either 8:00am or 3:50pm, you would either have to wait several hours or catch a considerably slower train. Saving an hour of travel time is useless if you have to wait several hours for the train.

It is HFR's plan to combine the Montreal-Toronto route with the Montreal-Ottawa and Ottawa-Toronto routes into one route that will allow it to have hourly service, which means you only have to wait an average of 30 minutes for a train.

You are also completely ignoring the travel time improvements between Ottawa and Toronto. That is VIA's busiest route and, AFAIK, the current service frequency (prior to COVID) is the highest it has ever been in history. The new HFR route will be significantly shorter and faster, which when combined with even more frequent and reliable service, will boost ridership even higher.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Not just the Turbo, it was not long ago Via had a 4 hour express train between Toronto and Montreal with existing equipment.

Yes, VIA did operate 1 express* train that would do the trip in 3:59 minutes using LRC trainsets, but there were still only 6 trains on weekdays (according to the April 1996 schedule), with travel times ranging from 4:34 to 5:30, depending on the number of stops.

*with only a stop at Dorval (not Guidwood).

Today (prior to COVID), they don't offer an express train between Toronto and Montreal (they have them on Toronto-Ottawa instead), and the travel times range from 4:49 to 5:28 (ignoring trains via Ottawa, which are slower with the current route).

[MolsonExport]

loved the memory lane trip with that 1976 route map/schedule. Those were the days when I would take VIA 15 or more trips/year.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

You are cherry picking one train and totally dismissing the value of frequency of service. If you look at the October 1976 schedule (the first national schedule that combined CN and CP's services), on weekdays each way there were

• 2 turbo trains each way (4:10 for express* and 4:15 if it stopped in Kingston)
• 2 Rapido direct trains (4:55, with a stop in Kingston)
• the Cavalier (overnight and took 8 hours)
• 2 trains that had local service to Brocville and allowed a connection to trains from Ottawa (ranging from 5:35 to 5:55)

* all trains stopped at both Guildwood and Dorval.

So unless you wanted a train at either 8:00am or 3:50pm, you would either have to wait several hours or catch a considerably slower train. Saving an hour of travel time is useless if you have to wait several hours for the train.

Maybe it is just me, but I tend to sort lists of travel options by duration. At least in the Before Time I would rather check out a restaurant or wander the city than sit in a plane/train/car for more time.

If you’re very tied to a specific schedule (your meeting in Toronto ends at 12 and you want to get back to Ottawa right away) then you’re probably going to fly (and won’t be lured onto a train unless a high speed system is built). If you”re taking the train it is because you’ve got some time on your hands.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by milomilo

In any non North American country the idea of a single track mainline passenger railway is preposterous, in the UK they barely exist outside of the most rural routes in Scotland. Double track is just the normal standard, and if your railway had such poor demand that you could service it with such inferior infrastructure, then it would be fair to question the utility of such a project.

Single track isn't as uncommon as you might think. Sure the main lines that have trains running along them to various different destinations every 5 or 10 minutes need double track, but a route that only sees trains once an hour each way only needs single track (unless it is HSR, in which case double track is needed for safety).

Originally Posted by milomilo

If demand for a slow rail line between Canada's largest cities is so poor that it only justifies a single track railway, then that does beg the question why it would be worth doing.

The thing about the eastern corridor is it is long and thin. Trains aren't branching off to multiple destinations. Double track will be needed on the outskirts of Toronto and Montreal (because of commuter rail) and maybe between Ottawa and Smiths Falls (since it will be likely shared with the Lakeshore trains), though that can probably be managed with more sidings. Hourly trains can easily be managed with single track and long sidings.

I say this as someone strongly in favour of investing in rail. But if demand is that weak, we might as well synthesise jet fuel with wind power and pay the airlines to do it or just buy some electric buses.

VIA's new trains in "Extra Long" configuration, will have a capacity of 418 seats, so with 15 trains a day, that is a capacity of 6,270 people per day without further lengthening the trains (which could be done). That is the equivalent of 114 buses per day.

As for synthesizing jet fuel, that is not an energy efficient process. When combined with airplanes being a very energy inefficient way of transporting people such short distances, you are wasting a tremendous amount of electrical energy, that could be used much more effectively.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'd be careful assuming that High Speed Rail is expensive to operate because of higher fuel costs. Yes, going faster takes a lot more energy. But electricity is a lot cheaper than diesel.

The problem with that argument is that it assumes that only high speed trains can be electrified. In most of the world, all trains on well used corridors are electrified, regardless of their speed. Even in the American Northeast Corridor, both the Northeast Regional and the Acela trains are electrified.

And unlike your personal vehicle, going faster also means reduced staff wages and higher asset utilization. Yes, maintenance is more expensive and so overall costs are higher. But the per seat-mile costs don't always work out prohibitively expensive.

That is a valid point about staff and asset utilization. It would be interesting to see actual stats on how much higher the track and train maintenance costs are for HSR vs conventional rail.

The flip side is demand too. Americans fill up the Acela. And every don't have our gas prices or airfares or even our weather.

They also fill up their more affordable Northeast Regional trains that follow the same route. The Northeast Corridor also has about triple the population of Canada's entire eastern corridor.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

You are cherry picking one train and totally dismissing the value of frequency of service.

Commenting on speed is being dismissive of frequency? What logic is this?

My point was that, at least when it comes to speed, we're spending billions just to avoid going backwards. But yes the frequency gain is valuable. But given that VIA had double digit frequencies along the Lakeshore pre-Covid, the gains aren't necessarily as huge as you think. The value of HFR is a better tailored schedule (more departures at peak) and improved reliability that comes with owned track enabling high frequencies, and therefore capacity.

Originally Posted by roger1818

You are also completely ignoring the travel time improvements between Ottawa and Toronto.

Once again. Not mentioning something in a post doesn't mean I am ignoring it. Are you simply unaware of my post history on HFR?

Originally Posted by acottawa

Maybe it is just me, but I tend to sort lists of travel options by duration. At least in the Before Time I would rather check out a restaurant or wander the city than sit in a plane/train/car for more time.

Would you have that choice if your employer is unwilling to pay for air fare? Even for public servants, emissions are now listed on the booking tool. Companies are increasingly committing to limit emissions. Where possible, like regional trips, I would expect such policies to substantially favour rail where possible.

Originally Posted by acottawa

If you’re very tied to a specific schedule (your meeting in Toronto ends at 12 and you want to get back to Ottawa right away) then you’re probably going to fly (and won’t be lured onto a train unless a high speed system is built). If you”re taking the train it is because you’ve got some time on your hands.

If the HFR rumours are true and the travel time from Toronto to Ottawa is 3 hrs 15 mins, I would fully expect plenty of employers will simply punt on airfare and tell their employees to take the train for anything but same day out-and-back. The extra 1.5 hrs saved on total travel time just isn't worth airfare.