VIA Rail

[steveintoronto]

Any idiot can look at the alignment and resulting speed limits and see that it's not going to happen. Also look at all the alignments VIA has studied in the last 40 years - this isn't one of them.

It's utter fantasy and bullshit spread by those who don't have a clue.

And others in the forum have pointed out what a complete and utter impossibility it is to run a faster service on that alignment.

What analyses? VIA has spent millions of dollars over the decades analyzing various alignments - and I've never seen that one.

Besides, VIA's recent announcement about Kingston makes it very clear what the Toronto to Kingston alignment will primarily be.

You acquit yourself brilliantly Fizz.

 

[MisterF]

D-S would never be drawing attention to Kingston's role if the planned routing is about to bypass this city. I'd say he has tipped his hand.

Of course CP is backing Shining Waters....they can sell the line for a pile of money. It's a marginal route that they will otherwise get peanuts for when (not if) the rails need replacement and it is abandoned.

There isn't even a case for the Peterboro-Toronto portion. Capital cost is ginormous (apart from the cost of upgrading, it needs a new routing into Toronto, CP will never let it come down the Belleville Sub to Leaside). There is no potential commuter ridership, since it's all greenbelt through Claremont. Ontario is in the process of extending the 407 to 115 which will enable some excellent bus routings across the north part of the city let alone down to Oshawa. Frequent express bus is the obvious solution for Peterboro.

- Paul

Read the article again, or at least the paragraph that I quoted:

Changes will be made by facilitating a "high-frequency network" that will put "end-to-end" traffic routes from Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto on a dedicated track. The current routes that exist on freight railways will be adjusted to tailor the towns in between those cities, with key anchor points being Kingston on the east side of Toronto and London on the west side of Toronto, described Desjardins-Siciliano.

It seems clear from what's written that the high frequency network that prioritizes end-to-end traffic is a separate service on separate tracks from the current route on the current freight railways. And that the current route will be kept to serve the smaller cities. Sure, the high frequency line could be along the lakeshore route, but if that's the case why would they bother keeping any service at all on the freight lines? The other possibility is that the author of the article got it all wrong.

Any idiot can look at the alignment and resulting speed limits and see that it's not going to happen. Also look at all the alignments VIA has studied in the last 40 years - this isn't one of them.

It's utter fantasy and bullshit spread by those who don't have a clue.

So to sum up, you don't have a source at all. It's just speculation on your part. Gotcha.

I've read a few sources now, and watched this: http://www.ckwstv.com/2016/04/29/new-changes-for-via-rail-and-kingstons-station/

D-S is very careful with his words. In any interview, he states "Kingston to London". Journos then add (gist) "making it easier to get from Kingston to Ottawa" or "straight through the Windsor-Quebec Corridor".

D-S sure did choose his words carefully. He said "that will allow us to repurpose the frequencies that we have today on the freight rail line and taylor them around Kingston". To repeat what I said further up, if the HFR dedicated line is going through Kingston, why keep any service at all on the freight line? And he didn't say there would be more frequencies, just that they would repurpose existing frequencies. What he said in that interview seems to be consistent with the newspaper article.

As for the Shining Waters proposal, I don't really see it as all that relevant to possible HFR on that same line to be honest. With the Shining Waters line, Peterborough would have been the main reason it got built and the main destination. With a potential HFR line, Peterborough would just happen to be along the route and its presence is pretty much irrelevant to the proposal.

 

[MisterF]

double post

 

[steveintoronto]

As for the Shining Waters proposal, I don't really see it as all that relevant to possible HFR on that same line to be honest. With the Shining Waters line, Peterborough would have been the main reason it got built and the main destination. With a potential HFR line, Peterborough would just happen to be along the route and its presence is pretty much irrelevant to the proposal.

What Shining Waters are all about is the RoW! They wish to save the line, not the railway operation, which they intend to outsource to an operator, or co-operate with someone who will in whatever form. They have the support of a surprising number of agencies, businesses, governments and CPR. VIA/Metrolinx running on and/or acquiring the line would delight them. I thought they were manic until reading up on their mission.

Shining Waters are merely holding a place in the line for a white knight:

[...]
The SWR business plan is supported by a Government of Canada Ear Marked capital commitment of $150 million and an equal amount from the Government of Ontario, for a total of $300 million. Key supporters include five federal Cabinet Ministers, four Members of Parliament, every municipality along the route, the Eastern Ontario Wardens, the Peterborough Chamber of Commerce, the Peterborough Economic Development Corporation and the CPR.

2. The Shining Waters Railway Concept
Following models and best practices developed and applied successfully in a number of locations in Canada and the U.S., SWR will be a locally governed railway owner and manager, but not an operator. All passenger and freight services, as well as track maintenance, will be provided under contract by experienced railway providers. [...]

http://www.shiningwatersrailway.com/

I've learned to listen and read D-S very closely. He's playing his cards very carefully, and the press is jumping to conclusions about what he's really stating.

I was just reading a link from Skyscraper http://www.skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=217925&page=7 on one of the most lengthy interviews with D-S: http://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/RACQ/RACQ0116/index.php?startid=12#/0

I initially mistook a lot of claims in the press, but once I carefully listened to or read his *actual words*...I realized he was constantly hedging, as a man in his position would have to do, to be able to state: "Check the record" when being accused of false statements later.

A case in point, as you make clear: "on the freight line". He's a lawyer by trade, and he's very careful what he says.

Besides, VIA's recent announcement about Kingston makes it very clear what the Toronto to Kingston alignment will primarily be.

Indeed, exceedingly clear, to those that can read and function with a reasonable degree of acumen.

“That will allow us to re-purpose the frequencies we have today on the freight rail line and tailor them around Kingston.”

http://www.ckwstv.com/2016/04/29/new-changes-for-via-rail-and-kingstons-station/

 

[nfitz]

So to sum up, you don't have a source at all. It's just speculation on your part. Gotcha.

I don't have a source that says that VIA isn't planning to run the Ottawa service through Iqaluit ... because there just isn't a lot of sources to prove a negative.

However, recall there was someone from VIA who posted further up who dismissed the Peterborough fantasy.

Why would have VIA have spent millions on engineering studies on the Montreal-Ottawa-Kingston-Toronto alignment, and not an Ottawa-Peterborough alignment if they were suddenly going to turn around and have service running in 3 years. They wouldn't have even completed the studies by then on that alignment - which of course they wouldn't do because of all the curves - it would have to involve a lot of new alignment through the Canadian shield.

 

[crs1026]

The Havelock Sub routing was profiled by an advocacy group who claimed to know of VIA having studied it. That's not an authotitative source.

Retaining local service on a route in parallel with a new service is also a bit fanciful, especially if the point of the exercise is to move away from subsidization. I can see some service retained to placate Cornwall and Brockville, but it may prove to be pretty meagre.

D-S's comments about the strength of the small-town market are interesting. I haven't seen ridership or market data to support this. What is clear is that virtually all of the communities that make up this small town grid voted Conservative last election. Building an express service through these communities but not offering access to it would be unwise politically, whereas retaining local service will serve the Liberals well next election time.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

The Havelock Sub routing was profiled by an advocacy group who claimed to know of VIA having studied it. That's not an authotitative source.

Retaining local service on a route in parallel with a new service is also a bit fanciful, especially if the point of the exercise is to move away from subsidization. I can see some service retained to placate Cornwall and Brockville, but it may prove to be pretty meagre.

D-S's comments about the strength of the small-town market are interesting. I haven't seen ridership or market data to support this. What is clear is that virtually all of the communities that make up this small town grid voted Conservative last election. Building an express service through these communities but not offering access to it would be unwise politically, whereas retaining local service will serve the Liberals well next election time.

- Paul

I'll post it yet again:

Peterborough Rail Study
In March 2008, the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario agreed to conduct a joint study for a passenger rail service from Toronto to Peterborough. The study was led by Metrolinx and was overseen by a steering committee composed of senior officials from Metrolinx, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Transport Canada.

The Peterborough Rail Study provides an assessment of the market potential and ridership, vehicle technology options, station locations, improvements to the railway track, bridges and road crossings, as well as capital and operating cost estimates for the proposed passenger rail service.

Upon completion, this study was submitted to the Federal and Provincial levels of government for their review and input on next steps for the project.

Read the Peterborough Rail Study
Read the Peterborough Rail Study appendices

However, recall there was someone from VIA who posted further up who dismissed the Peterborough fantasy.

VIA has not stated anything definitively. D-S especially isn't that foolish. He's being extremely careful to not paint himself into a corner. Earlier VIA studies (prior to the latest *announcements*, we've yet to see the latest study) alluded to or actually stated the Peterborough route and specifically the utilization of the now dormant CP line down the Don Valley owned by Metrolinx to Union Station. Gormick and others have itemized it and referred to it in various reports and comments. I've referred to it in this forum prior, and Mister F did just yesterday again.

I don't have a source that says that VIA isn't planning to run the Ottawa service through Iqaluit

Well thank God for that.

 

[nfitz]

Earlier VIA studies (prior to the latest *announcements*, we've yet to see the latest study) alluded to or actually stated the Peterborough route

East of Peterborough? Where?

 

[steveintoronto]

East of Peterborough? Where?

Havelock. Here's a novel idea, since you're just an encyclopedia of negativity, do some reading. Start with the Metrolinx/Federal study I've now linked numerous times. They list and link the prior studies.

And where are your links or references to any other route for HFR?

 

[nfitz]

Havelock. Here's a novel idea, since you're just an encyclopedia of negativity, do some reading. Start with the Metrolinx/Federal study I've now linked numerous times. They list and link the prior studies.

I looked in what you were linking, and I didn't see anything between Ottawa and Peterborough - or at least east of Havelock. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong one - perhaps you can put it in the thread again.

And where are your links or references to any other route for HFR?

Transport Canada library in Ottawa. Last time I was in there, it was in Place de Ville - though that was a few years ago.

The 1995 report is a good start - http://www.bv.transports.gouv.qc.ca/mono/0985915.pdf

Or the 1991 report - http://www.bv.transports.gouv.qc.ca/mono/0986299.pdf

Or the 1980 report - https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=362675

Or the 1984 VIA report

Or the early 1980s detailed route studies by CANAC for VIA.

Or the the early 2000s VIA Fast reports

Or the 2011 report - http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/25011/313852.pdf



Not one of them discusses uses an alignment through Peterborough (unless there is a long-forgotten throwaway line noting that obviously one can't use that alignment).

 

[steveintoronto]

I wrote:

And where are your links or references to any other route for HFR?

Fitz answers:

Transport Canada library in Ottawa. Last time I was in there, it was in Place de Ville - though that was a few years ago.

Fascinating. HFR wasn't even proposed as a concept then, and they still haven't released a report on proposed routes. What they have repeatedly stated is (gist) "and old RoW with no trackbed". They've made the assertion that it would be cheaper and faster to build on a disused RoW even if there is no track, than it would be to deal with extant CN trackage. Part of making this work, in either case, is the use of a single track with passing loops. And D-S has also made clear many times that *time of travel* is secondary to regularity and dependability. He wants to compete with cars, not planes. And his market intel proves him right. Metrolinx plan to go almost half the distance to extant VIA trackage out of Ottawa.

So I ask you yet again, as Mister F did yesterday: Where's your reference to what route(s) HFR proposes? This isn't HSR, it's HFR.
From your "2011 report":

MINISTÈRE DES TRANSPORTS DU QUÉBEC
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION OF
ONTARIO
TRANSPORT CANADA
Updated Feasibility Study of
a High Speed Rail Service
in the Quebec City – Windsor Corridor

What has that to do with the HFR concept? Does Metrolinx have a proposal and report on a track to Belleville that HFR can share?

Edit to Add:
I wrote

They've made the assertion that it would be cheaper and faster to build on a disused RoW even if there is no track, than it would be to deal with extant CN trackage.

Let me take that further, since D-S is far too diplomatic and considered to say it himself: "CN is a freakin' pain in the arse" on *any* level of co-operation. D-S and VIA would be far better off dealing with *reasonable* issues with locals rather than arguing endlessly and losing (The Transportation Act is *still* not changed) to CN's arbitrary diktums. For once, give VIA (in association with Metrolinx, AMT and private concerns) a clean slate to build on. Every locale along their alignment will welcome it, save for the occasional hold-out that *every* transportation project comes across. Unfortunately expropriation is a necessary reality for any project, but once achieved, VIA (or more correctly, the Consortium/Enterprise that will own the track) will never have to bow to the whim of CN again, or CP for that matter, albeit CP expresses a wish to co-operate in the Metrolinx/Transport Canada Peterborough 283 page w/ appendices report.

 

[dowlingm]

The attractiveness in some form of a revived Highway 7 rail corridor might increase in the event of Pickering Airport ever happening, either for passenger, intermodal or both. On the other hand, the same sort of thing was probably said about Mirabel.

EDIT: also was the reference to a white knight in reference to Del Mastro's Shining Waters intentionally funny?

 

[crs1026]

What they have repeatedly stated is (gist) "and old RoW with no trackbed". They've made the assertion that it would be cheaper and faster to build on a disused RoW even if there is no track, than it would be to deal with extant CN trackage.

It would be cheaper and faster to build on the 18 miles of disused RoW between Smiths Falls and Portland than it would be to build on 182 miles of disused RoW between Glen Tay and Kennedy, yes.

Designing and building approximately 50 km of new line through the bush between Portland and Pittsburgh, ON would be eminently simpler than dealing with the NIMBY's and designing and building two new high level bridges over the Don Valley at Wynford Road and the Ontario Science Center. And a new high level crossing of the Trent in Peterboro.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

The attractiveness in some form of a revived Highway 7 rail corridor might increase in the event of Pickering Airport ever happening, either for passenger, intermodal or both. On the other hand, the same sort of thing was probably said about Mirabel.

Yes! That is detailed in the Metrolinx/Fed report. It took me aback when I glanced at it, had to jog the memory to get the implications in context, but of course, that land is now ceded to the Rouge River Conservation (Authority?)...a bit of a strange political beast that isn't what it appears to be. The 'Peterborough Report' is stunning in detail, it must have cost a fair (fare?) penny. At 283 pages long including the appendix, they are obviously cognizant of exactly what you state: "The Hwy 7 Corridor"...or more correctly now, the "407 Corridor". I cycle up through that area a lot, or at least, used to last time I lived in TO, now I'm back, been sending a lot of info to a friend who is into mountain biking. South of Uxbridge, just north of that rail line (Glen Major) there's massive amounts of multi-use trails, and some excellent roads to cycle east to Cobourg and beyond. Densification will be a mixed blessing, but it's inevitable. I just trust they do it right.

EDIT: also was the reference to a white knight in reference to Del Mastro's Shining Waters intentionally funny?

I swear, that was unintended that way, but he is enough to put one off anything he's associated with. The irony of him and his regime (and Flaherty, who I had respect for, if not his gov't) having a hand in progressive rail issues is an oxymoron. I was thinking more in terms of a corporate rescue when using "white knight".

 

[steveintoronto]

Paul: Digging in the Metrolinx/TC Peterborough report, but my PDF reader isn't an Adobe one, can't download them anymore for Linux, so will have to plod through the report(s) tonight on some of your points. They are addressed in detail, maps, and options, especially diving under and over the Agincourt sections of yard, or connecting to the Uxbridge line (all sorts of options detailed) so will have some answers there, but did trip across this little gem while doing a cursory search:
(Section 3.1)

The railway currently operates a single train three times a week. These trains are currently operated
during the day but CP staff have stated that they could, if necessary, be operated during the night as they
have been in the past

Now that was some seven years ago, but just the fact that CP indicates willingness to operate at night bodes well for co-operation far beyond what VIA (or track Consortium) would/could expect from CN. CP is not being helpful on the Milton run, but in all deference to them, it's a real bottleneck. This is an entirely different scenario. I don't even know if CP (re: Ontario and Quebec Railway) still owns the RoW where abandoned, but what is still extant of theirs could showcase co-operation. The freight operators could certainly do with some PR on that.