crs1026
Superstar
These struck me as the two most interesting quotes. One about relationships with landlord railroads, and one about where the HFR BCA stands.
- Paul
- Paul
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
crs1026
Superstar
The interesting thing about the incremental improvements is they won't really shave that many minutes off of what VIA achieves with the base HFR build. When you increase one curve from 80 mph to 110 mph, you don't save that much time.
I would actually hope that the priority for incremental investment afterwards is in pushing the network out further, eg to London and beyond.
- Paul
Allandale25
Senior Member
Just to avoid disappointment: the “HFR Business Case” can’t be downloaded anywhere on the Globe and Mail’s website, not even as a paying subscriber...
Yeah, the person who wrote that misspoke. I think they meant "Was able to access the HFR portion of the Globe and Mail interview with the VIA Rail CEO and here it is:"
Allandale25
Senior Member
The timing is consistent with the November 2020 panel discussion where the VIA Rail CEO was one of the panelists. I posted about it back in November.
robmausser
Senior Member
That statement is really worrisome for me. The focus of HFR is not some milk run train that services every ted and susy's backyard hamlet town. Its supposed to be a high speed frequent connection between areas of ridership potential and destinations, aka cities.
If thats the mentality of the new CEO of VIA I have little hope for her turning VIA around. Her mentality is no different than the original purpose and vision of VIA over 40 years ago that needs to change: as a life-support for the dying passenger rail industry of the 1970s simply to make sure that trains exist in some minimal form for every mom and pop Canadian who can't afford a car. Its whats currently holding both Amtrak and VIA back and will continue to do so unless the mentality changes.
sacred
Active Member
You’re thinking about this wayy too hard. Getting as much political power on board is key right now. Also, connecting to Peterborough and if the Quebec City segment is done then Trois-Rivières counts as more communities.
Also, no one is allowed to reply to this saying “I don’t think Quebec City will happen if HFR is approved”. This has been discussed at length
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Let me ask you how many times you had to slow down while on board a Montreal-Toronto service to make passenger stops in Gananoque, Napanee, Trenton Junction or Port Hope? In my case it’s been zero times and if you look in any VIA timetable of the last 15 years you will know why...
robmausser
Senior Member
Ive stopped at Port Hope several times.
The Sarnia train through Kitchener is especially egregious. Talk about a milk run. We stop in Wyoming almost every time for 1 passenger.
MisterF
Senior Member
So take trains that don't stop in Port Hope. Hardly any if them do.
As for Sarnia, the way that a line with one train per day is run is irrelevant to HFR.
SFO-YYZ
Active Member
I'd be happy with anything MTL-TO for under 4 hours. As a frequent flyer with AC, I'd take HFR any day over the mess at YYZ/YTZ-YUL (just the Uber trip alone from to YYZ/YUL makes me shudder at times given the traffic and chance of flight delays).
And on a more selfish note - I actually enjoy a slightly longer train journey
Xav
Active Member
Same, I usually take a train and stay overnight in Toronto before taking a train back. I can still work on the train and it's usually about the same price as an uber to YUL and a flight to YTZ. Plus my employer allows me to book business on Via.I'd be happy with anything MTL-TO for under 4 hours. As a frequent flyer with AC, I'd take HFR any day over the mess at YYZ/YTZ-YUL (just the Uber trip alone from to YYZ/YUL makes me shudder at times given the traffic and chance of flight delays).
And on a more selfish note - I actually enjoy a slightly longer train journey
crs1026
Superstar
The London-Stratford-Kitchener segment is easily raised to the same quality as VIA's Ottawa-Brockville line, and for roughly the same amount (escalated, of course). That's quite affordable inside or outside of HFR.
The bigger issue is how many trains per day, and that's something that VIA will have to work out with Metrolinx and CN, as the pinch points are mostly to the east of Kitchener.
I agree that the state of the current service on that line is a national embarassment - the tracks to Senneterre are in better shape - but it doesn't touch on your concern about stopping too many places. St Mary's and Stratford are of sufficient size to justify service, doesn't have to be every train. With better tracks and more sidings, both express and local service can coexist.
- Paul
roger1818
Active Member
While using the Winchester Sub would technically be an option, I don't think it is a very likely one given that I don't think CP would be willing to have their network disconnected from the Atlantic ports.
Besides, you are totally missing my point. I was trying to say that having completely separate and isolated ROWs for Montreal-Toronto and Ottawa-Toronto (like some people seem to be promoting), is not only expensive, but unnecessary since the shortest possible route for Montreal-Toronto could have branches to Ottawa and Kingston with the bulk of the ROW being shared.
If you go back to my original post, you will see that I said,:
In other words, this would only happen once when demand has increased to a point where HFR is exceeding its capacity and upgrades are needed anyway. The thing about intercity rail is once you have hourly service, increasing frequency beyond that doesn't provide significant benefit, so rather than having 30 minute service through Ottawa, it would make more sense to keep it at the (post HFR) hourly frequency and add hourly express trains from Montreal to Toronto. As I said:
I still remain unconvinced that a zig-zag Toronto-Kingston-Ottawa-Montreal route is the best one for a future HSR plan. I would rather see a route that goes down the middle with branches to Kingston and Ottawa.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I agree that this is the threshold for non-HSR. It's unfortunate that HFR is closer to 5 hrs. I hope post-launch, we will see investments that bring Toronto-Montreal down to at least under 4.5 hrs within 5 years. And hopefully down to 4 hrs within a decade. Realistically, getting it down to 4 hrs means cutting Ottawa-Montreal by 10-15 mins and Toronto-Ottawa by 30-50 mins. That would probably require several billion in capital to do a lot of straightening, track twinning and grade separation, to get an average speed of 145 kph for entire 580 km stretch.
I think a lot of folks are really underestimating how popular HFR will be against flying for sectors where HFR is competitive. If the only savings from a flight is 1 hr for a trip from Toronto to Ottawa, and the fare difference is $50 each way, how many employers are going to pony up for air fare? Using current number, the difference in emissions at a $130/tonne gives VIA about a $8-9 difference in carbon taxes alone, in each direction. So I think $100 difference in roundtrip fare between HFR and air is very likely for the Toronto-Ottawa and Toronto-Montreal.
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
There's no such middle route though. It's a really simple choice. Stay on the lakeshore and serve Kingston with better service, while screwing over Ottawa and the other major metros with slower service. Or separate inter-metro service from lakeshore service.
As for serving Kingston in the future with HSR, I don't see the point and I don't see it as likely. Let's say HFR is progressively upgraded. Some kind of turnout for Kingston is 60 km from Sharbot Lake. Building something like that from scratch would be well over a billion dollars. Possibly even closer to $2B. To serve a subset of travelers from Kingston save maybe 30-40 mins for their trip to Toronto or Ottawa. This is a business case that will never close. It will always be easier to simply spend that money improving the entire lakeshore service so that all the communities along the route can benefit. Not just Kingston.