VIA Rail network developments

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Either that or they would lease it to VIA. Either way, CP would retain the right to run trains overnight when VIA isn't using the track.

As I said over on UT: CP only runs 3 trains a week each way on the Havelock Sub. and are only maintaining it to Class 1 standards, so it takes 12 hours to get from the Toronto Yard to Havelock. By letting VIA buy/lease the ROW and improve the track, CP can do the same trip in a couple hours, allowing them to do the return trip in one night (while VIA isn't using the track), which will save a lot of money in labour and equipment utilization, so it is a win/win.

Awesome, thanks for the insight. Definitely a win-win situation then. Since VIA will be the one spending capital on upgrades, seems almost certain they would take ownership and provide overnight access for CP. But even with a lease agreement, seems like it'd be a non-issue for freight traffic conflicts regardless.

[lrt's friend]

I wonder if the old CPR M&O subdivision via Rigaud has been reviewed as part of the current studies. This right of way is owned by VIA and was pegged for HSR and would be the fastest route between Ottawa and Montreal.

A 20 minute saving via the Winchester subdivision is an underestimate as others have suggested. Any possibility of separating trains efficiently at Smiths Falls, so that part of the train can move to Ottawa or Montreal via the fastest route? This would eliminate potential frequency losses.

I hope track geometry will be improved as part of this project, so that as grade separations are done, the potential for even faster speeds become possible. This project should be the key to moving towards HSR long-term, even if only parts of the route can reach that level. We see this happening in Europe.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I wonder if the old CPR M&O subdivision via Rigaud has been reviewed as part of the current studies. This right of way is owned by VIA and was pegged for HSR and would be the fastest route between Ottawa and Montreal.

A 20 minute saving via the Winchester subdivision is an underestimate as others have suggested. Any possibility of separating trains efficiently at Smiths Falls, so that part of the train can move to Ottawa or Montreal via the fastest route? This would eliminate potential frequency losses.

I was about to post the same thing. Why people are fixated on using it to save a few minutes but miss out on providing more frequencies for more riders and at little cost is beyond me.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

From La Presse:

Those are some pretty significant improvements. Here are the travel times by car according to Google (VIA to VIA):

TO-MTL: 5hr50min
TO-OTT: 4hr44min
OTT-MTL: 2hr7min
MTL-QC: 3hr20min

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

I was about to post the same thing. Why people are fixated on using it to save a few minutes but miss out on providing more frequencies for more riders and at little cost is beyond me.

Because despite Ottawa being the biggest market for VIA from Toronto, all the folks who only ever travel to Montreal for Bachelor parties will bitch incessantly about what a waste the project is, if travel times come in close to what they imagine they can drive at (and they all imagine they can drive from Toronto to Montreal in 4 hrs).

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

I was about to post the same thing. Why people are fixated on using it to save a few minutes but miss out on providing more frequencies for more riders and at little cost is beyond me.

I imagine that it's because we're already spoiled in terms of the high frequency of intercity transportation, with a massive volume of daily buses (what was it? Like every 30 minutes on weekdays, sometimes 3-4 buses leaving more or less at once?) heading to Montreal in a pre covid world, and in about the same amount of time. So we're not being offered something really new. Get me to Montreal downtown to downtown in an hour with no stops in between. Boom!

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

On the other hand, with HFR, Tremblay to Dorval will be just under 1.5 hrs. The REM runs 10 mins at peak and 15 mins off-peak and it's only one stop from Dorval. So worst case scenario is less than 2 hrs from Tremblay to a check in desk at Dorval.

Which segment of the traveling market will find a benefit in this proposition? In terms of UX alone, it sounds like a festival of overdesign with copious amounts of friction points.

This is my pattern:
Home>Taxi>Airport>Fly
Why would I do:
Home>Taxi>Trainstation>Train>Trainstation>Other form of transportation>Airport>Fly?

The change at Dorval station alone will be a deal killer for most.

So to whom will this appeal?
Business travelers want to be in the system asap and sipping coffee and eating croissants in the lounge knowing all they have to do is show up at the gate on time. A family going on a holiday will drive to YUL if not fly out of YOW directly. And budget travelers will use the bus, which brings them directly to YUL.

Perhaps single travelers or couples flying out to more exotic destinations and who hate switching planes on the way.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'm curious to see if airlines like Air France and KLM continue with their shuttle buses or simply codeshare with VIA and give a REM ticket or shuttle bus from Dorval station.

What's appealing with the shuttle is that travelers get to check-in in Ottawa and it's a straight quick 1.5H bus ride to YUL provided by a company that's got only one job in the world to do: bring me to YUL. That's a very difficult business model to compete with.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

Which segment of the traveling market will find a benefit in this proposition? In terms of UX alone, it sounds like a festival of overdesign with copious amounts of friction points.

This is my pattern:
Home>Taxi>Airport>Fly
Why would I do:
Home>Taxi>Trainstation>Train>Trainstation>Other form of transportation>Airport>Fly?

The change at Dorval station alone will be a deal killer for most.

So to whom will this appeal?
Business travelers want to be in the system asap and sipping coffee and eating croissants in the lounge knowing all they have to do is show up at the gate on time. A family going on a holiday will drive to YUL if not fly out of YOW directly. And budget travelers will use the bus, which brings them directly to YUL.

Perhaps single travelers or couples flying out to more exotic destinations and who hate switching planes on the way.



What's appealing with the shuttle is that travelers get to check-in in Ottawa and it's a straight quick 1.5H bus ride to YUL provided by a company that's got only one job in the world to do: bring me to YUL. That's a very difficult business model to compete with.

It would not make any sense at all at the proposed speeds. Maybe if a higher speed line were built someday.

[acottawa]

If the Winchester sub is available (for purchase expansion, prioritization of passenger rail, etc.) then why isn’t Belleville sub available.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

If the Winchester sub is available (for purchase expansion, prioritization of passenger rail, etc.) then why isn’t Belleville sub available.

As soon as you get down to the Lakeshore, you run into congested land use, making adding track for exclusive passenger use prohibitively expensive.

The CPR is not going to be selling the Winchester sub after only a few years of buying trackage getting them to the Atlantic port at St. John, New Brunswick. The Winchester sub is a critical part of their network.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As soon as you get down to the Lakeshore, you run into congested land use, making adding track for exclusive passenger use prohibitively expensive.

The CPR is not going to be selling the Winchester sub after only a few years of buying trackage getting them to the Atlantic port at St. John, New Brunswick. The Winchester sub is a critical part of their network.

It seems to have the same 50 foot ROW as everywhere else where Via has managed to build 3 or 4 tracks elsewhere. CP is currently mostly single track.

It makes you wonder if there has been any discussion with CP at all.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

I imagine that it's because we're already spoiled in terms of the high frequency of intercity transportation, with a massive volume of daily buses (what was it? Like every 30 minutes on weekdays, sometimes 3-4 buses leaving more or less at once?) heading to Montreal in a pre covid world, and in about the same amount of time. So we're not being offered something really new. Get me to Montreal downtown to downtown in an hour with no stops in between. Boom!

I agree, the magic time to get to Montreal should be 1 hour.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It seems to have the same 50 foot ROW as everywhere else where Via has managed to build 3 or 4 tracks elsewhere. CP is currently mostly single track.

It makes you wonder if there has been any discussion with CP at all.

First of all, as previously discussed, CP removed the double track from the Winchester sub about a year ago, making its reinstatement very affordable. The Belleville sub has never had double track along most of it.

Secondly, VIA will likely only be running a handful of trains a day along the Winchester sub, but will likely be running 30 or more trains a day on the chosen HFR route west of Smiths Falls. It is a lot easier to negotiate priority for a small number of high yielding express trains (with VIA otherwise not using the track) than it is to do so for a large number of trains.

Thirdly, there are hundreds of crossings in all those cities and towns along the Lakeshore that VIA would need to deal with. Because of the high vehicle traffic over the crossings in the towns, to double track them, VIA would likely have to pay for grade separation for not only their track but CP's as well. Grade separation in an urban area on an active rail line is not cheap. When crossing rural roads, grade separation isn't as important and even when it is needed, if there is a lot more room to work with to create temporary bypasses, and if the rail line isn't active, they might not even need to.

Fourthly, VIA already has a route approved for passenger trains along the lakeshore that they can use for the stopping trains. What VIA needs is an express route from Smiths Falls to Toronto, and for that, running through all those towns on the lakeshore is a liability, not a benefit.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

First of all, as previously discussed, CP removed the double track from the Winchester sub about a year ago, making its reinstatement very affordable. The Belleville sub has never had double track along most of it.

Secondly, VIA will likely only be running a handful of trains a day along the Winchester sub, but will likely be running 30 or more trains a day on the chosen HFR route west of Smiths Falls. It is a lot easier to negotiate priority for a small number of high yielding express trains (with VIA otherwise not using the track) than it is to do so for a large number of trains.

Thirdly, there are hundreds of crossings in all those cities and towns along the Lakeshore that VIA would need to deal with. Because of the high vehicle traffic over the crossings in the towns, to double track them, VIA would likely have to pay for grade separation for not only their track but CP's as well. Grade separation in an urban area on an active rail line is not cheap. When crossing rural roads, grade separation isn't as important and even when it is needed, if there is a lot more room to work with to create temporary bypasses, and if the rail line isn't active, they might not even need to.

Fourthly, VIA already has a route approved for passenger trains along the lakeshore that they can use for the stopping trains. What VIA needs is an express route from Smiths Falls to Toronto, and for that, running through all those towns on the lakeshore is a liability, not a benefit.

Why would you think there are only a handful of trains going to Montreal and (30 minus a handful) going to Ottawa?

This project is clearly not budgeting for significant grade separation no matter which route it takes. For the most part on Belleville it appears to be small local roads, with arterial roads already grade separated, which does not seem to case in Peterborough, for example.

The comparison is not the double tracking cost on Winchester vs Belleville, it is double tracking on Belleville vs. upgrading class 1 track, converting snowmobile tracks to rail service and cutting a new greenfield line through the wilderness.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Why would you think there are only a handful of trains going to Montreal and (30 minus a handful) going to Ottawa?

This project is clearly not budgeting for significant grade separation no matter which route it takes. For the most part on Belleville it appears to be small local roads, with arterial roads already grade separated, which does not seem to case in Peterborough, for example.

The comparison is not the double tracking cost on Winchester vs Belleville, it is double tracking on Belleville vs. upgrading class 1 track, converting snowmobile tracks to rail service and cutting a new greenfield line through the wilderness.

On the first point, we don't have the details. However, it isn't 30 minus a handful going to Ottawa versus a handful to Montreal. Pre-covid, Ottawa-Toronto already had 20 trains per day. It is more likely 30 going to and from Montreal via Ottawa plus a handful of express trains during the busiest hours that bypass Ottawa. So, you might have departures from Toronto to Montreal via Ottawa at 6 am, 7 am, 8 am, 9 am, 10 am, etc and a Montreal express at 6:30 am, 9:30 am, 12:30 pm, 3:30 pm and 6:30 pm.

The point about Lakeshore versus greenfield or reuse of abandoned rail line or a combo of the both, is that it will cheaper to build (or rebuild) through lightly populated rural country compared to double or triple tracking through the many cities and towns near Lake Ontario. We have already experienced investing in additional track along the CN Lakeshore line that cost a fortune and offered no benefit to VIA. When the trackage continues to be owned by the freight operator, they will use it to their advantage and passenger trains will continue to have secondary status. That is the whole point of going via Peterborough. The track will be owned by VIA and their trains will get priority. Any freight trains will have to work around VIA schedules.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

On the first point, we don't have the details. However, it isn't 30 minus a handful going to Ottawa versus a handful to Montreal. Pre-covid, Ottawa-Toronto already had 20 trains per day. It is more likely 30 going to and from Montreal via Ottawa plus a handful of express trains during the busiest hours that bypass Ottawa. So, you might have departures from Toronto to Montreal via Ottawa at 6 am, 7 am, 8 am, 9 am, 10 am, etc and a Montreal express at 6:30 am, 9:30 am, 12:30 pm, 3:30 pm and 6:30 pm.

The point about Lakeshore versus greenfield or reuse of abandoned rail line or a combo of the both, is that it will cheaper to build (or rebuild) through lightly populated rural country compared to double or triple tracking through the many cities and towns near Lake Ontario. We have already experienced investing in additional track along the CN Lakeshore line that cost a fortune and offered no benefit to VIA. When the trackage continues to be owned by the freight operator, they will use it to their advantage and passenger trains will continue to have secondary status. That is the whole point of going via Peterborough. The track will be owned by VIA and their trains will get priority. Any freight trains will have to work around VIA schedules.

Pre-COVID there were 7 Montreal to Toronto direct trains and 10 Ottawa to Toronto, I am not sure why you would expect to go from a 7 to 10 ratio to a 1-10 ratio.

The Via improvements did help, but the problem is that CN still controls the track and prioritized freight trains.

The whole HFR proposal is based on the premise that Via can find a solution to this. If they cannot then then HFR trains are going to get stuck behind freight trains through Toronto, between Perth and the Quebec border, from Coteau to Laval, and maybe from Laval to Quebec (not sure how much the QGR is used) and it seems unlikely they will get the the kind of reliability this project’s proponents keep talking about. Winchester and Belleville should have almost identical freight requirements, so CP should be willing to make a similar deal for both.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

I agree, the magic time to get to Montreal should be 1 hour.

I think this sounded unreasonable in my head so I decided to try some comparables:

Ottawa - Montreal -> 161km -> 1hr

Paris - Reims -> 136km -> 2hr~ (SNCF)
Osaka - Nagoya -> 140km -> 0hr50m (JR)
Frankfurt - Koln -> 147km -> 1hr15m (DB)
Shanghai - Hangzhou -> 161km -> 0hr45m - 1hr15m
Marseille - Nice -> 161km -> 2hr40m (TGV five stops)
London - Bristol -> 169km -> 1hr24m (NR)
Paris - Lille -> 198km -> 1hr (TGV no stops)

Personally I think Ottawa-Montreal in 1hr30m is acceptable, especially considering auto journies will only become longer as traffic increases.

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by JHikka

I think this sounded unreasonable in my head so I decided to try some comparables:

Ottawa - Montreal -> 161km -> 1hr

Paris - Reims -> 136km -> 2hr~ (SNCF)
Osaka - Nagoya -> 140km -> 0hr50m (JR)
Frankfurt - Koln -> 147km -> 1hr15m (DB)
Shanghai - Hangzhou -> 161km -> 0hr45m - 1hr15m
Marseille - Nice -> 161km -> 2hr40m (TGV five stops)
London - Bristol -> 169km -> 1hr24m (NR)
Paris - Lille -> 198km -> 1hr (TGV no stops)

Personally I think Ottawa-Montreal in 1hr30m is acceptable, especially considering auto journies will only become longer as traffic increases.

The Paris-Lille option is a perfect match. We'll take that one.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Pre-COVID there were 7 Montreal to Toronto direct trains and 10 Ottawa to Toronto, I am not sure why you would expect to go from a 7 to 10 ratio to a 1-10 ratio.

You are missing the point. One of the fundamental principles that HFR is based on is that demand between Mtl-Ott and Ott-Tor is combined with demand between Mtl-Tor to help boost frequency. The bypass only works at times of day when demand is high enough that trains on separate Ott-Tor and Mon-Tor can filled reliably. I expect that would only be 2 to 4 trains a day, each way (4 to 8 trains total). The remainder of the passengers would be rerouted through Ott.

The Via improvements did help, but the problem is that CN still controls the track and prioritized freight trains.

It helped CN, yes. VIA's on time performance dropped.

The whole HFR proposal is based on the premise that Via can find a solution to this.

The solution is to build their own dedicated track either in their own ROW or by

If they cannot then then HFR trains are going to get stuck behind freight trains through Toronto, between Perth and the Quebec border,

The solution is for VIA to build their own track that they have complete control over on the short stretches CP's ROW that they need. Could this be done along the Lakeshore? Possibly, but it would be ridiculously expensive.

One of the things the announcement did say they need to do is negotiate a deal to get in and out of Toronto and Montreal. There are several options on the table for this and this is likely the reason for the wide price range.

from Coteau to Laval,

It looks like HFR trains will not be traveling through Coteau according to Transport Canada's map.

and maybe from Laval to Quebec (not sure how much the QGR is used)

I am pretty sure VIA could either purchase or get a long term lease on QGRY's Trois-Rivières Sub without too much difficulty.

Winchester and Belleville should have almost identical freight requirements, so CP should be willing to make a similar deal for both.

Near identical freight requirements, but Belleville Sub would have more than double the passenger train requirement.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

The Paris-Lille option is a perfect match. We'll take that one.

How is it a perfect match when you consider that Paris had a 2017 Metro population of 12,628,266 (about triple Montreal's 2016 population of 4,098,927) and Lille had a 2007 Metro population of 3,800,000 (almost triple Ottawa-Gatineau's 2016 population of 1,323,783)?