VIA Rail

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I guess I am assuming they have done preliminary work on it to figure out a replacement for it. I do agree with your point though.

Actually, it does look like very recently this started:

New Westminster Railway Bridge: Transportation needs study

And this in 2017:

Evaluation of the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative and the Gateways and Borders Crossing Fund

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Actually, it does look like very recently this started:

New Westminster Railway Bridge: Transportation needs study

And this in 2017:

Evaluation of the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative and the Gateways and Borders Crossing Fund

So, maybe it could be in the stimulus package.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Actually, it does look like very recently this started:

New Westminster Railway Bridge: Transportation needs study

And this in 2017:

Evaluation of the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative and the Gateways and Borders Crossing Fund

My guess is that nothing will happen with the bridge until after the current Pautillo Bridge is removed (likely 2025 now), but that will provide some additional ROW that could be used for a replacement railway bridge.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, maybe it could be in the stimulus package.

There is no "stimulus package" in Canada. And big infrastructure cannot be built as stimulus in Canada - this project will take years to develop and years more to construct, and will be built because it's a worthy project. They're not going to delay it just because construction doesn't coincide with a recession.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I'd be more pissed if they could spend a little more, and we have true HSR and we don't. I almost wonder if they did any legwork for HSR, but shelved it. If they did, they can dust it off, update the new information, and start building it.

That is really not possible. Once you build past 177-201kph, you need full grade separation. That is very expensive. The entire point of HFR is to avoid such expense. There's a case though for upgrading some portions where there are tons of slow curves or where smaller/cheaper grade separations can be done to speed it all up. This is probably what was recommended.

Keep in mind that a decade ago, it was already over $9.1B to build a 200 kph diesel HSR Line between just Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. That would easily be over $11B today. Probably closer to $12-13. A fully electric 300 kph line is probably $14-15B today.

https://tc.canada.ca/en/corporate-se...ndsor-corridor

Personally, I also think it's a waste to go full HSR. VIA isn't heavily subsidized. So full HSR would probably have something like $300 round trip tickets. We'd build it and then everybody would complain about the cost to ride it. Better to build something that runs under 200 kph and costs $120 to ride. I'd be happy if they can get Toronto-Montreal to 4 hrs for $120.

Not to mention, we need capital to also build the Toronto-Windsor and Calgary-Edmonton lines next. The $4-6B saved from not going full HSR on Toronto-Montreal can go a long way elsewhere.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, maybe it could be in the stimulus package.

It is quite possible they are waiting for the completion of the new Pattullo Bridge. It is being built on the other side of the rail bridge, so maybe (just a guess) they are planning on building the new rail bridge where the old Pattullo Bridge is located. I have also heard rumours that the new rail bridge could be further east.

And before anyone brings it up, it wouldn't have been feasible to build a shared road/rail bridge because of elevation issues. The road bridge needs to be tall enough to allow ships under it, but the grades would be too steep for trains (especially freight trains), so the train bridge needs to be a swing bridge (or similar) to let ships through.


Aproximate location of New Pattullo Bridge drawn on map from the RAC Canadian Rail Atlas

[milomilo]

The attractiveness of HFR is that it can be incrementally upgraded by VIA alone. Just get it built, and worry about improving it later.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The attractiveness of HFR is that it can be incrementally upgraded by VIA alone. Just get it built, and worry about improving it later.

Yep.

The only place I think additional investment is truly warranted are the sections that are just hard to upgrade later or would simply offer little to no return if upgraded. There's plenty of room between VIA's original $4B unelectrified HFR proposal and $15B unelectrified Toronto-Quebec HSR, for an optimal solution.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by roger1818

It is quite possible they are waiting for the completion of the new Pattullo Bridge. It is being built on the other side of the rail bridge, so maybe (just a guess) they are planning on building the new rail bridge where the old Pattullo Bridge is located. I have also heard rumours that the new rail bridge could be further east.

And before anyone brings it up, it wouldn't have been feasible to build a shared road/rail bridge because of elevation issues. The road bridge needs to be tall enough to allow ships under it, but the grades would be too steep for trains (especially freight trains), so the train bridge needs to be a swing bridge (or similar) to let ships through.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/EskrfBth.png[img]
Aproximate location of New Pattullo Bridge drawn on map from the RAC Canadian Rail Atlas

Would we actually build a swing bridge today?

If we are to make the very expensive upgrade to the rail network there you'd want to ensure it has enough capacity to meet the needs of the network for 50+ years, maybe more. So I'd guess a bare minimum 2 track crossing but maybe more (or multiple crossings). To then compromise that with a swing bridge seems backwards.

If it isn't feasible to raise the tracks, then they'll have to go under.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yep.

The only place I think additional investment is truly warranted are the sections that are just hard to upgrade later or would simply offer little to no return if upgraded. There's plenty of room between VIA's original $4B unelectrified HFR proposal and $15B unelectrified Toronto-Quebec HSR, for an optimal solution.

Honestly, I think even if we "waste" money on infrastructure that will be rebuilt fairly quickly after HFR is in operation, that's money well spent if it was the difference between HFR being built and nothing being built.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Honestly, I think even if we "waste" money on infrastructure that will be rebuilt fairly quickly after HFR is in operation, that's money well spent if it was the difference between HFR being built and nothing being built.

Yes and no. The reality is that the project isn't going to hinge on the $2-3B extra that they might spend. The Toronto-Peterborough and Ottawa-Montreal stretches can probably be brought into service inside of 3 years. The only question is whether they want to launch HFR immediately with that or add another year or two to finish the Peterborough-Smiths Falls portion that will be focus of the additional investment. If they phase it, they can still run services to Peterborough, Ottawa and Montreal. So not like those investments are useless till the whole thing is done. The key here is to get shovels in the ground and not launch yet another HSR study instead.

The more I look at this, the more I suspect that the JPO refined the proposal to basically offer something that was closer to HSR Lite, that could get built in 4-5 yrs. The only question is how much more upgrading have they built in.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

There is no "stimulus package" in Canada. And big infrastructure cannot be built as stimulus in Canada - this project will take years to develop and years more to construct, and will be built because it's a worthy project. They're not going to delay it just because construction doesn't coincide with a recession.

Right now, there isn't, but I'll bet that if an election is called, or if a real budget is done there will be one similar to the 2008 recession. That one did have infrastructure in it.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Right now, there isn't, but I'll bet that if an election is called, or if a real budget is done there will be one similar to the 2008 recession. That one did have infrastructure in it.

Canada's Economic Action Plan.

There are still signs advertising that here and there, or at least I've spotted one within the past year.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Right now, there isn't, but I'll bet that if an election is called, or if a real budget is done there will be one similar to the 2008 recession. That one did have infrastructure in it.

There's already lots of federal money available, but if there is no project on the table then the government cannot give money to it.

[swimmer_spe]

With the list of lines that Amtrak are working on returning, one of them is extending the Vermonter to Montreal. Any idea whether it will stop at the St Lambert station?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Canada's Economic Action Plan.

There are still signs advertising that here and there, or at least I've spotted one within the past year.

The only time I saw one of those signs was on a mountain bike trail outside Calgary. Which was great, but hardly the massive stimulus imagined.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Would we actually build a swing bridge today?

I'm not sure if there is any other choice. Trains don't like steep grades and with approaches from 3 different directions on the south shore and 2 directions on the North, it would be very expensive to do gradual grade changes on all approaches.

If we are to make the very expensive upgrade to the rail network there you'd want to ensure it has enough capacity to meet the needs of the network for 50+ years, maybe more. So I'd guess a bare minimum 2 track crossing but maybe more (or multiple crossings). To then compromise that with a swing bridge seems backwards.

I agree that it should be at least double if not triple tracks. Of course the other complication is that it is also a crossover point.

If it isn't feasible to raise the tracks, then they'll have to go under.

I am not sure how deep the Fraser is there (as a reference the George Massy Tunnel downstream is 22m deep, the current rail bridge has 10m clearance above the water, and the new Port Mann Bridge was build with 42m clearance) , but it certainly might be easier to tunnel under. Even still, you would need to do a lot of excavating to get all 5 approaches down to grade.

[casper]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Don't know how - Biden isn't going to spend stimulus money on Canada and Trudeau isn't going to spend money on Amtrak.

The problem bridge is owned by the Federal Government and maintained/operated by CN. Used by about 5 different railways.

From New West into Vancouver it is the same track that Via Rail uses. It is the same station that Via Rail uses. Heading south from New West it is an import line for moving goods exported into the US.

I don't see the issue. Canada is not investing in rolling stock, just cleaning up some problem with track that in the future we should be looking at putting commuter rail on.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by casper

The problem bridge is owned by the Federal Government and maintained/operated by CN. Used by about 5 different railways.

From New West into Vancouver it is the same track that Via Rail uses. It is the same station that Via Rail uses.

I agree. AFAIK, the bridge is primarily used by CN and probably use it more than BNSF and Amtrak combined. It has been an issue for a long time and there really isn't a good excuse for the government's inaction.

Originally Posted by casper

Heading south from New West it is an import line for moving goods exported into the US.

It is also important for moving American goods to Canadian ports (which provides employment), especially Roberts Bank. There are also significant safety concerns about continuing to have freight and passenger trains running along a public beach.

Originally Posted by casper

I don't see the issue. Canada is not investing in rolling stock, just cleaning up some problem with track that in the future we should be looking at putting commuter rail on.

There is an image issue of investing in an American Railway. Another factor could be the CPR. If the government replaces the rail bridge (for CN et al. but not CP) and moves/upgrades BNSF's track, CP could complain about the playing field not being level.

Having said that, it is a huge bargain for Canada and shouldn't be dismissed or put off as unimportant.

[le calmar]

Greyhound shutting down all bus service in Canada. The company will however continue to operate its cross-border routes to the few Canadian cities with such connections.