VIA Rail

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's not. Every presentation from YDS when he was CEO said he wanted to get people off the roads. One of his old presentations, he even criticized HSR, for its lack of affordability.

As I've explained to Reece Martin (as knowledgable and nuanced as he is on many Transit topics, he often turns into a speed-obsessed HSR fan when it comes to intercity rail) on Twitter:

[T]here are (or at least: were back in 2006) 13 intercity car trips for every air trip between cities like MTRL, OTTW and TRTO - and even 32 car trips for every air trip within the Corridor.

Therefore, the business case for HFR doesn't depend on whether it would absorb 10%, 50% or 90% of the existing market for air travel between Montreal and Toronto, despite the disproportionate amount of attention that tiny market segment receives from all sorts of HFR critics.

Or in different words: Capturing 1% of all car trips amounts to the same increase in market share as capturing 32% of all air trips...

I was referring to the following figures from the Ecotrain Study (check the spoiler for more details):

Note: "Primary markets" refer to intercity trips starting and ending in either QBEC, MTRL, OTTW, KGON, TRTO, LNDN or WDON. "Secondary markets" refers to intercity trips either starting or ending in one of these CMAs (with the other end being somewhere else within the Corridor.

***

Originally Posted by hipster duck

IIRC, there were also only 5 Turbo trainsets, later reduced to just 3. After infrastructure, the next most important thing is to have a consistent, frequent service, and all they could do is run two trains per day per direction.

CN ran other TO-MTL trains, but they would have been using the conventional equipment, running much more local service with even longer travel times than VIA's slowest trains today.

People glamorize the Turbo as a high speed train that was too ahead of its time, but operationally, I think it was the opposite: the last example of a private railroad running a flagship streamliner. It was a daily luxury service on unimproved track. It was definitely more like the "Burlington Zephyr" or the "Twentieth Century Limited" than it was like Shinkansen or TGV, which were built-from-the-ground-up frequent high speed rail systems.

As described in the excerpt from Lukasiewicz in my previous post, the first lease was for five seven-car trains (which only lasted one month in revenue service in 1968/69 and eight months in 1970/71), whereas the second lease saw them reconfigured into three nine-car trains, of which one was used between Montreal and Ottawa until one trainset caught fire in 1975.

Interesting observation with how the Turbos were marketed. This is how CN announced their arrival in the April 1967 schedule ("smooth - sleek - in style"):

[swimmer_spe]

Let's say by 2030, HFR is operational from Toronto to Montreal. Let's say in its first 5 years, of operation, it is shown to be a complete success. How long till the sections owned by Via are electrified, or i it part of the HFR construction?

[swimmer_spe]

https://globalnews.ca/news/8384292/h...cuation-train/

“It’s a joint operation,” he said in an interview from Montreal. “Emergency Management B.C. asked CN to organize it. We reached out to Via Rail and we orchestrated it with them.

“It’s about 200 evacuees who had no other way of getting out of town,” he said.

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

https://globalnews.ca/news/8384292/h...cuation-train/

“It’s a joint operation,” he said in an interview from Montreal. “Emergency Management B.C. asked CN to organize it. We reached out to Via Rail and we orchestrated it with them.

“It’s about 200 evacuees who had no other way of getting out of town,” he said.

Probably the first time VIA has had any usefulness in BC since its inception

Glad to hear the people onboard that train made it out okay.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Floppa

Probably the first time VIA has had any usefulness in BC since its inception

Glad to hear the people onboard that train made it out okay.

If money were invested in it, it could be more useful.

But alas, defunding it into irrelevance is the name of the game now.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Floppa

Probably the first time VIA has had any usefulness in BC since its inception

I would have to disagree considering that VIA runs what is deemed a remote service through Northern BC.

[swimmer_spe]

https://www.facebook.com/RobinPascoe...31224835953118

Monday at 05:55, the test train will depart North Bay to Toronto and return the same day.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

https://www.facebook.com/RobinPascoe...31224835953118

Monday at 05:55, the test train will depart North Bay to Toronto and return the same day.

Here we go again showcasing CN's great ability to schedule maintenance and run a passenger train at the same time with limited freight traffic. Not even a passing grade, F for effort and F for results. You would think that CN new about the need to replace rail long before the ONR ran their test train. If this is supposed to be a representative run then there is no hope for the return of the Northlander or for CN. Maybe the ONR should buy the Newmarket sub north of Washago to North Bay if CN is not interested in running it properly. See the facebook page below with the entry from Russ Doyle.

See Facebook page: Railfanning ONR - OVR - CNR - CPR [Passenger Test 301 arrives at North Bay from it's trip to Toronto Union Station November 22nd Russ Doyle
Fantastic day for northern Ontario. I don't understand how it could held up at Gravenhurst for 4 hours, on a line that only sees one regular train per day

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Here we go again showcasing CN's great ability to schedule maintenance and run a passenger train at the same time with limited freight traffic. Not even a passing grade, F for effort and F for results. You would think that CN new about the need to replace rail long before the ONR ran their test train. If this is supposed to be a representative run then there is no hope for the return of the Northlander or for CN. Maybe the ONR should buy the Newmarket sub north of Washago to North Bay if CN is not interested in running it properly. See the facebook page below with the entry from Russ Doyle.

See Facebook page: Railfanning ONR - OVR - CNR - CPR [Passenger Test 301 arrives at North Bay from it's trip to Toronto Union Station November 22nd Russ Doyle
Fantastic day for northern Ontario. I don't understand how it could held up at Gravenhurst for 4 hours, on a line that only sees one regular train per day

I saw that. I am part of the group. Actually, this is a good thing. It highlight how unwilling CN is to let them on the line.

In other news:
https://cfjctoday.com/2021/11/22/c-p...eopen-tuesday/

[Vin]

VIA Rail is finally starting to catch up with European/Asian trains with this new intercity train. I'm excited.

• Video Link

[J.OT13]

Two minute quick tour of the new trains.

• Video Link

[hw621]

Originally Posted by Vin

VIA Rail is finally starting to catch up with European/Asian trains with this new intercity train. I'm excited.

• Video Link

Diesel locomotive hauled trains travelling at less than 200kph. I won't consider this catching up.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by hw621

Diesel locomotive hauled trains travelling at less than 200kph. I won't consider this catching up.

Are you under the impression that every train in Asia and Europe is am electrified high speed train?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Are you under the impression that every train in Asia and Europe is am electrified high speed train?

Is that the impression you got from that post? Because I didn't.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by esquire

Is that the impression you got from that post? Because I didn't.

Seems to be like they were under the impression that the busiest and most important passenger rail corridors in those places are electrified high speed trains. Which for the most part, they are.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Seems to be like they were under the impression that the busiest and most important passenger rail corridors in those places are electrified high speed trains. Which for the most part, they are.

Electrified? Indeed.
High-Speed? Only in the distorted perception of North American HSR fans…

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Electrified? Indeed.
High-Speed? Only in the distorted perception of North American HSR fans…

Nah the Corridor is Canada's #1 busiest and most important rail corridor. Pretty sure that given the number of HSR rail routes in the world, the #1 rail route in most fully developed countries in Europe and Asia is some level of HSR even if just the 200km/h threshold for upgraded legacy tracks.

Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and China all have it in Asia, while Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Switzerland ,Netherlands, Sweden, the UK, Russia, Turkey, Greece, Poland, Austria and Finland all have stretches of 200km/h or greater rail in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe.

[Truenorth00]

And in a lot of the world, gas is a lot more expensive, highways are tolled, and passenger rail is heavily subsidized. VIA does well, on its shoestring budget, in a country that heavily subsidizes auto usage. Just imagine, what train ridership would be if gas was $2.25/L and it costed $53 in tolls to get from Toronto to Montreal, like it does from Paris to Lyon.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Nah the Corridor is Canada's #1 busiest and most important rail corridor. Pretty sure that given the number of HSR rail routes in the world, the #1 rail route in most fully developed countries in Europe and Asia is some level of HSR even if just the 200km/h threshold for upgraded legacy tracks.

Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and China all have it in Asia, while Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Switzerland ,Netherlands, Sweden, the UK, Russia, Turkey, Greece, Poland, Austria and Finland all have stretches of 200km/h or greater rail in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe.

It all depends on what your definition of HSR is. Personally (and that is in sharp contrast to people like Reece Martin), I prefer definitions derived from the infrastructure built rather than from the rolling stock and services operated and that’s why I feel the need for a clear distinction between conventional rail, Higher-speed rail and High Speed Rail:

• Conventional rail allows for mixed operation with freight, stationary signals and the presence of level crossings. It’s construction/upgrade costs are small and they are generally usable by all types of heavy rail rolling stock.
• Higher-speed rail still allows for mixed operation with freight trains, but requires in-cab signalling and full grade separation with all non-rail traffic. In Europe, both is generally required beyond 160 km/h, which is why that speed is the highest speed for conventional rail services. For North America, the FRA and TC allow level crossings until 110 mph (177 km/h), which means that Higher-Speed Rail only starts beyond that speed.
• Conversely, High Speed Rail precludes mixed operations with freight services. In Germany, mixed operations are only permissible until 230 km/h and in the United States until 150 mph (240 km/h), which means that HSR only starts above that speed.

In short:
Conventional rail: Mixed operation, level crossings and trackside signals.
Higher-speed rail: Mixed operation, segregation from non-rail traffic and in-cab signals.
High Speed Rail: Passenger-only operation, segregation from non-rail traffic and in-cab signalling.

And this is where we have to start crossing countries off your list, as neither Sweden, Russia, Greece, Poland nor Finland host any dedicated HSR infrastructure. In other countries like Netherlands or Belgium, HSR is barely used for domestic travel, as conventional or Higher-speed InterCity trains operate at higher frequencies, a much power price and at a travel time which is not much slower than international HSR services. Finally, in countries like Germany, Switzerland and again Austria, only a fraction of route-km between the largest cities is HSR and in the case of the UK, the only existing HSR line is useless for travel between any two of the country’s largest cities.

Even though your claim is correct for the four Asian countries you listed, the notion that HSR is the dominant form of rail travel on the busiest rail corridors is misleading for Europe, as it basically only applies to France, Italy and Spain*…

*Technically also Turkey, but its overall modal share of rail travel is so negligible, that I refuse to count it as a HSR nation…

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

It all depends on what your definition of HSR is. Personally (and that is in sharp contrast to people like Reece Martin), I prefer infrastructure-related definitions over rolling stock-related definitions and that’s why I feel the need for a clear distinction between conventional rail, Higher speed rail and High Speed Rail:

• Conventional rail allows for mixed operation with freight, stationary signals and the presence of level crossings. It’s construction/upgrade costs are small and they are generally usable by all types of heavy rail rolling stock.
• Higher-speed rail still allows for mixed operation with freight trains, but requires in-cab signalling and full grade separation with all non-rail traffic. In Europe, both is generally required beyond 160 km/h, which is why that speed is the highest speed for conventional rail services. For North America, the FRA and TC allow level crossings until 110 mph (177 km/h), which means that Higher-Speed Rail only starts beyond that speed.
• Conversely, High Speed Rail precludes mixed operations with freight services. In Germany, mixed operations are only permissible until 230 km/h and in the United States until 150 mph (240 km/h), which means that HSR only starts above that speed.

In short:
Conventional rail: Mixed operation, level crossings and trackside signals.
Higher-speed rail: Mixed operation, segregation from non-rail traffic and in-cab signals.
High Speed Rail: Passenger-only operation, segregation from non-rail traffic and in-cab signalling.

And this is where we have to start crossing countries off your list, as neither Sweden, Russia, Greece, Poland nor Finland host any dedicated HSR infrastructure. In other countries like Netherlands or Belgium, HSR is barely used for domestic travel, as conventional or Higher-speed InterCity trains operate at higher frequencies, a much power price and at a travel time which is not much slower than international HSR services. Finally, in countries like Germany, Switzerland and again Austria, only a fraction of route-km between the largest cities is HSR and in the case of the UK, the only existing HSR line is useless for travel between any two of the country’s largest cities.

Even though your claim is correct for the four Asian countries you listed, the notion that HSR is the dominant form of rail travel on the busiest rail corridors is misleading for Europe, as it basically only applies to France, Italy and Spain*…

*Technically also Turkey, but its overall modal share of rail travel is so negligible, that I refuse to count it as a HSR nation…

The original point is that forumer hw621 was disappointed that VIA doesn't have speeds as high as other parts of the world stating, "Diesel locomotive hauled trains travelling at less than 200kph. I won't consider this catching up."

So that's the context of the HSR discussion.

And while I'm not personally disappointed, he's right that we don't and probably won't have 200km/h+ speeds any time soon which is something many if not most developed countries have on some part of their rail networks. So no need to cross anything off the list or dissect HSR definitions.