HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2020, 9:39 PM
jamincan jamincan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: KW
Posts: 1,438
The reality is that a 3h15 train to/from Ottawa hourly is far more competitive than air travel. That sort of frequency is such that you can pretty much ignore scheduling and show up and leave when required. Air travel is not close to that flexible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2020, 9:52 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamincan View Post
The reality is that a 3h15 train to/from Ottawa hourly is far more competitive than air travel. That sort of frequency is such that you can pretty much ignore scheduling and show up and leave when required. Air travel is not close to that flexible.
I mean shuttle services in the Corridor are hourly. But in a world of climate change, the cost of flying will be going up. And corporate travel policies will start taking emissions impact into account.

There's even calls to ban frequent flyer plans.

https://www.good.is/frequent-flyer-miles-climate-change
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2020, 2:38 AM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
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.
When you put it like that... HFR is even more unambitious. This is something that has the capacity to transport 0.03% of Canada's population per day. If it didn't get built, it wouldn't make the slightest difference to any of Canada's performance metrics.

I still support the project, just remaining realistic about its impact.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2020, 2:47 AM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
When you put it like that... HFR is even more unambitious. This is something that has the capacity to transport 0.03% of Canada's population per day. If it didn't get built, it wouldn't make the slightest difference to any of Canada's performance metrics.
This is the wrong way to look at it. Nobody looks at some LRT line and wonders what percentage of Canada's entire population it carries.

What HFR will do is allow growth in market share against flying in some markets (Toronto-Ottawa, Montreal-Quebec City) inter-city buses in other markets (Toronto-Montreal) and driving across the Corridor. It also creates capacity for transport. And most importantly is a foundation to build on. Once the initial line is built, tracks can be added, portions can be grade separated, straightened or banked as demand and funding dictates. We could start out with HFR, put in several hundred million per year and have the line converted to HSR over two decades.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2020, 4:36 AM
acottawa acottawa is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 15,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamincan View Post
The reality is that a 3h15 train to/from Ottawa hourly is far more competitive than air travel. That sort of frequency is such that you can pretty much ignore scheduling and show up and leave when required. Air travel is not close to that flexible.
Unless they are going to abandon pricing models and move to a fixed fare (and allow standing) then it wouldn’t be practical to do that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2020, 1:05 PM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Commenting on speed is being dismissive of frequency? What logic is this?
The point is, people look at the golden age with rose colored glasses. The reality is that even with Turbo, rail service between Toronto and Montreal sucked (and still does).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
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.
Yes VIA has managed to eek out low, double digit frequencies along the lakeshore; however, since the lakeshore route bypasses Ottawa, that capacity is split between Montreal-Toronto and Ottawa-Toronto service (with a Kingston-Toronto train thrown in for good measure). VIA can't get double digit frequencies to both Ottawa and Montreal along the Lakeshore.

The gains of HFR depend on which city pairs you are talking about.

Montreal-Toronto: This route will go from 6 to 15 trains a day. That 2.5 times the departures.

Ottawa-Toronto: The travel time will drop from approximately 4 hours and 30 minutes to as low as 3 hours and 15 minutes. The number of departures will slightly improve from 10 to 15 trains a day.

Montreal-Ottawa: This will be the biggest winner along the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto segment, also going from 6 to 15 trains a day and travel time will drop significantly (from 1:58 to 1:33).

Quebec-Montreal: If built, this would be the biggest winner overall, going from 5 to 18 trains a day and travel time will drop from 3:21 to 2:10.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
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.
Improved frequency, reliability and overall capacity is of course the biggest gain, though with single track, I don't know if they can tailor their schedule as much as you are implying. The intervals will be pre-set by where the passing tracks are located.

Most of my stats are based on this article in JULY 2019, which is well worth a read.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2020, 1:21 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post

Most of my stats are based on this article in JULY 2019, which is well worth a read.

Familiar with it. I'm the one who posted that article here before....

And there's a hell of a lot more discussion about HFR on other forums. That article isn't the whole story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
The point is, people look at the golden age with rose colored glasses. The reality is that even with Turbo, rail service between Toronto and Montreal sucked (and still does).
Not sure whether you can't comprehend the point being made or are just being deliberately argumentative.

Nobody is disputing that HFR is better than what we have now. What I am suggesting is that what we have now sucks, and so despite spending billions we're getting service that is slower than what we had in the past and even frequency and capacity that would be considered unremarkable in most of the developed world. That is not an attack or even criticism of HFR, which I strongly support. It's a lament about the pathetic state of our infrastructure and the massive underinvestment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2020, 1:47 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Nobody is disputing that HFR is better than what we have now. What I am suggesting is that what we have now sucks, and so despite spending billions we're getting service that is slower than what we had in the past and even frequency and capacity that would be considered unremarkable in most of the developed world. That is not an attack or even criticism of HFR, which I strongly support. It's a lament about the pathetic state of our infrastructure and the massive underinvestment.
That's my position. I hope that HFR is a first step that means something actually good can be developed.

I guess it's kind of like GO. A decade or two ago it was basically the absolute bare minimum that could be provided to give meaningful service that could grow. Now though, while still hardly world class, it's good enough with high enough and growing ridership that it demands upgrades, and is getting it. Cancelling GO now would be untenable and its future looks good. Hopefully HFR gets VIA to the same position, for the corridor at least.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2020, 1:55 PM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
When you put it like that... HFR is even more unambitious.
It was never intended to be ambitious. After many failed ambitious attempts, it was designed to be something affordable that can actually get done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
This is something that has the capacity to transport 0.03% of Canada's population per day. If it didn't get built, it wouldn't make the slightest difference to any of Canada's performance metrics.
What percentage of Canada's population do you think do intercity travel in a given day? The other factor is that while the percentage of uses is small compared to many public transit projects, the distances travelled are large, so the emissions savings per passenger are larger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
I still support the project, just remaining realistic about its impact.
There is no golden bullet for emissions reductions. Instead we have to look at a bunch of small projects, where each one will move the yardsticks by a small amount.

One could equally ask what percentage of Canada's total emissions will be reduced by Calgary's RouteAhead plan. Sure more people will benefit from it in a day than HFR, but the emissions reductions per person will be less. Like you with HFR, I do support it, but you have to realize that each individual project will have a very small effect.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2020, 2:10 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,185
GO RER is a lot more secure than HFR. Even conservatives in Ontario know that their fate is tied to the 905. And improving GO is a huge part of the. Especially given how crowded GO has gotten in the last decade.

HFR on the other hand lacks a sizable enough constituency to move the needle lectorally. Maybe seats in Peterborough. But that's it. Makes it hard to get commitment. I had hoped the Liberals would see it as a project that has both environmental and economic merit. But they seem almost half hearted about it. And that's leading to HFR really being cut down to as bare bones a proposal as it could be. That's really sad.

Expanding the rumoured HFR budget from $4B to $7B for Toronto-Peterborough-Ottawa-Montreal would get us substantial double tracking, full electrification, some straightening and bypasses, getting travel time down to a bit more competitive level. As it stands, Toronto-Ottawa and Ottawa-Montreal will be great, but Toronto-Montreal at 4:45 will be pretty marginal over the bus or car.

The most questionable issue is that VIA kept advertising the $4B price tag (without electrification) but added Quebec City. And they've lost access to the Mount Royal Tunnel. I sincerely hope that segment and its cost and complications is not holding up and causing underinvestment on the rest of the project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2020, 2:19 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
GO RER is a lot more secure than HFR. Even conservatives in Ontario know that their fate is tied to the 905. And improving GO is a huge part of the. Especially given how crowded GO has gotten in the last decade.

HFR on the other hand lacks a sizable enough constituency to move the needle lectorally. Maybe seats in Peterborough. But that's it. Makes it hard to get commitment. I had hoped the Liberals would see it as a project that has both environmental and economic merit. But they seem almost half hearted about it. And that's leading to HFR really being cut down to as bare bones a proposal as it could be. That's really sad.

Expanding the rumoured HFR budget from $4B to $7B for Toronto-Peterborough-Ottawa-Montreal would get us substantial double tracking, full electrification, some straightening and bypasses, getting travel time down to a bit more competitive level. As it stands, Toronto-Ottawa and Ottawa-Montreal will be great, but Toronto-Montreal at 4:45 will be pretty marginal over the bus or car.

The most questionable issue is that VIA kept advertising the $4B price tag (without electrification) but added Quebec City. And they've lost access to the Mount Royal Tunnel. I sincerely hope that segment and its cost and complications is not holding up and causing underinvestment on the rest of the project.
To be clear, for my analogy future HFR is more equivalent to GO as it is today or five years ago - still not (third) world class, but with enough growing ridership that something that is actually befitting of a rich country can be built on top and isn't at risk of being scrapped completely.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2020, 2:29 PM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Familiar with it. I'm the one who posted that article here before....
Sorry, I missed that. It was mainly listed to reference my source of data but it is still worth reading for those who haven't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
And there's a hell of a lot more discussion about HFR on other forums. That article isn't the whole story.
I don't expect it to be the whole story, but I don't really trust forum discussions as a source of reliable data without solid references (which is why I try to reference my sources whenever feasible).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Not sure whether you can't comprehend the point being made or are just being deliberately argumentative.
LOL. Your point has not being made clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Nobody is disputing that HFR is better than what we have now. What I am suggesting is that what we have now sucks, and so despite spending billions we're getting service that is slower than what we had in the past
Maybe for Montreal-Toronto travel, but not for any other city pairs. I am sure you know that, but it isn't clear the way you say it. You make it sound like travel times will be worse than what we had in the past everywhere, which is not the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
and even frequency and capacity that would be considered unremarkable in most of the developed world.
Compared to the rest of the world, I agree. Compared to what we have ever had in history, I disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
That is not an attack or even criticism of HFR, which I strongly support. It's a lament about the pathetic state of our infrastructure and the massive underinvestment.
Agreed, but we have to start somewhere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2020, 3:18 PM
acottawa acottawa is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 15,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
GO RER is a lot more secure than HFR. Even conservatives in Ontario know that their fate is tied to the 905. And improving GO is a huge part of the. Especially given how crowded GO has gotten in the last decade.

HFR on the other hand lacks a sizable enough constituency to move the needle lectorally. Maybe seats in Peterborough. But that's it. Makes it hard to get commitment. I had hoped the Liberals would see it as a project that has both environmental and economic merit. But they seem almost half hearted about it. And that's leading to HFR really being cut down to as bare bones a proposal as it could be. That's really sad.

Expanding the rumoured HFR budget from $4B to $7B for Toronto-Peterborough-Ottawa-Montreal would get us substantial double tracking, full electrification, some straightening and bypasses, getting travel time down to a bit more competitive level. As it stands, Toronto-Ottawa and Ottawa-Montreal will be great, but Toronto-Montreal at 4:45 will be pretty marginal over the bus or car.

The most questionable issue is that VIA kept advertising the $4B price tag (without electrification) but added Quebec City. And they've lost access to the Mount Royal Tunnel. I sincerely hope that segment and its cost and complications is not holding up and causing underinvestment on the rest of the project.
5 years into this proposal they still haven’t answered some pretty basic questions.

1). How is the line going to get through Montreal? (Between Dorval and St Martin). The Tunnel seems to be off the table (and even if it wasn’t the approach Via currently uses into Montreal is incredibly slow and does not seem easily upgradable). The only option that seems even remotely affordable in their budget window is bypassing downtown Montreal and building a station in TMR, but they seem loathe to admit that in public. Any option assumes CN or CP is willing to yield track or ROW land for dedicated passenger use (their apparent unwillingness to do that is the whole reason for this project).

2) How are they going to get through Peterborough? This is not a high traffic line that was significantly grade separated in urban areas decades ago (like the CN mainline). The Peterborough situation resembles the Guelph situation Metrolinx has to deal with, and the GO solutions are incredibly expensive. Again, the only option that would be even remotely affordable would be to bypass Peterborough and build a “Peterborough Junction” station outside of town, but they are again loathe to admit that in public.

3) The Toronto situation is somewhat more clear because there is a decade-old feasibility study for GO to Peterborough in the public record. But those costs were very high ($2B for the faster option) and inflation adjusted would eat up a huge chunk of the budget. They also would require CP to yield land or track for dedicated passenger use (or some sort of expensive tunnel project).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2020, 3:41 PM
hipster duck's Avatar
hipster duck hipster duck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
5 years into this proposal they still haven’t answered some pretty basic questions.

1). How is the line going to get through Montreal? (Between Dorval and St Martin). The Tunnel seems to be off the table (and even if it wasn’t the approach Via currently uses into Montreal is incredibly slow and does not seem easily upgradable). The only option that seems even remotely affordable in their budget window is bypassing downtown Montreal and building a station in TMR, but they seem loathe to admit that in public. Any option assumes CN or CP is willing to yield track or ROW land for dedicated passenger use (their apparent unwillingness to do that is the whole reason for this project).

2) How are they going to get through Peterborough? This is not a high traffic line that was significantly grade separated in urban areas decades ago (like the CN mainline). The Peterborough situation resembles the Guelph situation Metrolinx has to deal with, and the GO solutions are incredibly expensive. Again, the only option that would be even remotely affordable would be to bypass Peterborough and build a “Peterborough Junction” station outside of town, but they are again loathe to admit that in public.

3) The Toronto situation is somewhat more clear because there is a decade-old feasibility study for GO to Peterborough in the public record. But those costs were very high ($2B for the faster option) and inflation adjusted would eat up a huge chunk of the budget. They also would require CP to yield land or track for dedicated passenger use (or some sort of expensive tunnel project).
The problem with this project is so far 100% of the work has been on building a business case, and very little effort has been put into answering basic technical/engineering questions that, frankly, should be put to bed in order to build a business case.

I'm not saying they need to release a full EIA, but some report should highlight technical challenges like the ones you mentioned.

It's kind of sad, since in the past 5 years VIA could have piggybacked on a number of initiatives by more powerful stakeholders that would have made their life easier.

For example, there is a TPAP underway to completely rebuild Scarborough Junction, complete with a grade-separated fly-under for electrified GO RER trains to access an upgraded Stouffville line at 15 minute frequencies. This would have probably been the best way for VIA HFR trains to run from Toronto Union Station to the CP mainline here. Of course VIA completely missed the boat on this initiative, so they'll have to go it alone and find other alternatives.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2020, 4:28 PM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
1). How is the line going to get through Montreal? (Between Dorval and St Martin). The Tunnel seems to be off the table (and even if it wasn’t the approach Via currently uses into Montreal is incredibly slow and does not seem easily upgradable). The only option that seems even remotely affordable in their budget window is bypassing downtown Montreal and building a station in TMR, but they seem loathe to admit that in public. Any option assumes CN or CP is willing to yield track or ROW land for dedicated passenger use (their apparent unwillingness to do that is the whole reason for this project).
That is a big problem. I know a lot of people on here have dismissed it, but I think building a station in TMR solves several problems:
  1. Faster approach from the west,
  2. Easier approach from the east without access to the tunnel,
  3. Gives them a station that they own and can grow without asking permission from the owner.

By integrating their station with an REM station, connections to downtown would be easy and for those not going downtown, it will be a lot easier to get to by taxi or car. It is common practice in Europe to not have intercity trains go all the way downtown but to have an easy rail connection for those who are. I am not convinced that this will be the option chosen, but I haven't ruled it out either.

Gaining CPs ROW might be easier than you think. As I mentioned earlier, CP reduced their Winchester Sub from double track to single track last summer (and the Belville Sub has always been single track), so their capacity for traffic to Montreal is greatly reduced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
2) How are they going to get through Peterborough? This is not a high traffic line that was significantly grade separated in urban areas decades ago (like the CN mainline). The Peterborough situation resembles the Guelph situation Metrolinx has to deal with, and the GO solutions are incredibly expensive. Again, the only option that would be even remotely affordable would be to bypass Peterborough and build a “Peterborough Junction” station outside of town, but they are again loathe to admit that in public.
Yes, that is a problem. It will be interesting to see what they propose, but bypass is the likely option.

Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
3) The Toronto situation is somewhat more clear because there is a decade-old feasibility study for GO to Peterborough in the public record. But those costs were very high ($2B for the faster option) and inflation adjusted would eat up a huge chunk of the budget. They also would require CP to yield land or track for dedicated passenger use (or some sort of expensive tunnel project).
Don't forget that feasibility study was done before CP totally gutted their Toronto Yard (in Agincourt). Getting through it was one of the biggest issues in the study. A joint venture between VIA and Metrolinx would make the project more affordable for both.

Alternatively, they could go with a North Toronto station option (possibly using the old CPR North station). Like Montreal, as long as it has a decent connection to downtown, it wouldn't be the worst idea, but it is less likely than there (I think the Metrolinx joint venture is most likely).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2020, 11:13 AM
acottawa acottawa is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 15,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post
The problem with this project is so far 100% of the work has been on building a business case, and very little effort has been put into answering basic technical/engineering questions that, frankly, should be put to bed in order to build a business case.

I'm not saying they need to release a full EIA, but some report should highlight technical challenges like the ones you mentioned.

It's kind of sad, since in the past 5 years VIA could have piggybacked on a number of initiatives by more powerful stakeholders that would have made their life easier.

For example, there is a TPAP underway to completely rebuild Scarborough Junction, complete with a grade-separated fly-under for electrified GO RER trains to access an upgraded Stouffville line at 15 minute frequencies. This would have probably been the best way for VIA HFR trains to run from Toronto Union Station to the CP mainline here. Of course VIA completely missed the boat on this initiative, so they'll have to go it alone and find other alternatives.
I think you're right. Another thing I think they missed the boat on was infrastructure upgrades on lines they already own from Smith Falls to Coteau (which would be useful whether HFR goes anywhere or not). There was tonnes of infrastructure money floating around the last 5 years and Via got very little (if anything).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2020, 11:45 AM
acottawa acottawa is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 15,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post

Gaining CPs ROW might be easier than you think. As I mentioned earlier, CP reduced their Winchester Sub from double track to single track last summer (and the Belville Sub has always been single track), so their capacity for traffic to Montreal is greatly reduced.
Then that raises the question of why they are so fixated on the Havelock Sub, which basically a shortline with class 1 track that has never seen significant passenger or freight traffic and likely needs massive work. If CP is willing to part with mainline ROW in Toronto and Eastern Ontario (maybe Montreal) then to me adding track for Via use in the ROW of Belleville Sub should at least be looked at. I can't find a list of the mileage markers for Havelock, but it certainly seems like a more direct route between central Toronto and Smith Falls (339km on Belleville sub, about 400 to Ottawa). The route also goes through more population centres.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2020, 2:14 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is online now
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,708
Whatever (if anything) ever comes out of the VIA corridor debate, I really think it is critical to maintain core to core service (i.e., Central Station, Montreal; Union Station, Toronto). Anything less would be a really shortsighted mistake. One of the primary selling points has been offering direct service. It is really perhaps the most important reason why I would take VIA from Toronto to Montreal, rather than flying. If I wanted a very annoying bus+subway/commuter train add-on at both ends, I would just fly, for about the same price.

What the hell is it with Fallowfield? Does that literally mean Buttfuck nowhere field? Ditto for Aldershot.

Convenience and Speed have to be the foundation for any VIA HFR/HSR strategy.
__________________
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."-President Lyndon B. Johnson Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man. Am I an Asseau?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2020, 2:18 PM
acottawa acottawa is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 15,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post

What the hell is it with Fallowfield? Does that literally mean Buttfuck nowhere field?
Pretty much.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Fa...05b26?hl=en-US
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2020, 2:31 PM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
Then that raises the question of why they are so fixated on the Havelock Sub, which basically a shortline with class 1 track that has never seen significant passenger or freight traffic and likely needs massive work.
I do agree that it needs a significant amount of work. That won't be cheap, but it would be cheaper than adding track through all the urban centres along the Lakeshore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
If CP is willing to part with mainline ROW in Toronto and Eastern Ontario (maybe Montreal) then to me adding track for Via use in the ROW of Belleville Sub should at least be looked at.
I think you confused what what I meant. I was strictly talking about the track on the Island of Montreal (the Vaudreuil Sub) and I didn't intend to imply that they would apply for discontinuance. It is double tracked and has sufficient capacity to meet all of VIA, EXO and CP's needs.

There is also the possibility that CP could reroute their main line to bypass the island of Montreal and run along the south shore. There is some evidence that they could actually make money doing so by selling the valuable land used by their St-Luc rail yard. I am not saying that this will happen, but it could.

The Bellville Subdivision is single track (and always has been) so sharing it wouldn't be feasible, and having CP move to CN's Kingston Sub would be a hard sell. It could be double tracked, but as I said, that would be very expensive as it goes through urban centres, so grade separation would become much more important and few if any of the existing bridges were designed for double track. Then there is the risk that CP could do what CN did and take VIA's money to expand the track and then fill it up with freight trains (especially if they replaced the double track along the Winchester Sub).

The other issue is what to do about Kingston. It is true that the HFR route doesn't serve it either, but since it doesn't serve any of the rest of the Lakeshore, frequent regional service can be justified. If HFR serviced the Lakeshore, the justification for frequent regional service to Kingston would be diminished. You also end up with HFR having competing objectives of providing reasonably fast intercity service and slow reginal service that exists today and end up with it doing neither well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
I can't find a list of the mileage markers for Havelock, but it certainly seems like a more direct route between central Toronto and Smith Falls (339km on Belleville sub, about 400 to Ottawa). The route also goes through more population centres.
I found an old CPR schedule on the UBC Library Website. Back then the two subdivisions were each divided into 2 smaller subdivisions. The distances (in miles as I didn't bother converting to km) are as follows:
Havelock Sub (Glen Tay to Havelock)	 93.7
Peterboro Sub (Havelock to Agincourt) 88.0
181.7

Belleville Sub (Glen Tay to Trenton) 87.3
Oshawa Sub (Trenton to Agincourt) 96.3
183.6
The latter is very similar to the 184 miles OKthePK reports for the Belleville Sub (Glen Tay to Jct Havelock Sub). As a result, Havelock Sub is actually a couple miles shorter than the Belleville Sub (though admittedly inconsequential in the scheme of things). More significant would be the slower speeds required for going through all those population centres along the Belleville Sub.

Last edited by roger1818; Sep 24, 2020 at 3:20 PM. Reason: fixed typo and adjusted formating
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:18 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.