VIA Rail

[SaugeenJunction]

Not directly a GO project, but the Bellville underpass on the lower Don Trail is wrapping up construction and features re-laying part of the Metrolinx Don Branch where the underpass was built - here are some pictures! The line looks very grown-in, but with chatter about VIA using the line for their HFR project, maybe it won't be this way for long!

Aiming to Reopen Trail in July – Date to be Determined

"Tracks Removed: The rail bed on top of the Underpass, before laying the new track ballast and rails"

"Tracks Replaced: City contractors have replaced the rail line above the Belleville underpass and largely completed the earthworks around the new structure."

Update on the Don Branch, which may be used for VIA's HFR project!

 

[crs1026]

The latest news on HFR studies....

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...tudies-on-via-rail-expansion/article35538002/

- Paul

 

[SaugeenJunction]

The latest news on HFR studies....

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...tudies-on-via-rail-expansion/article35538002/

- Paul

Great catch! Not too much new here, but glad to see that it is moving through the pipes. From a political angle, I think that it is a very positive project. I still think that they will go with the $4 billion diesel version, unless the IB sees some real value in electrification. But for an extra $2 billion, I'm sceptical that they will.

What the article doesn't make clear is the overall price. HFR, (as in the corridor project) costs $4 billion, or $6 billion electrified. The fleet renewal is pegged at roughly an additional $1.5 billion. That means that base HFR is $5.5 billion, and electrification HFR is $7.5 billion.

Still, I'm hopeful. This would be a great way to launch the Infrastructure Bank with a bang.

 

[cplchanb]

Great catch! Not too much new here, but glad to see that it is moving through the pipes. From a political angle, I think that it is a very positive project. I still think that they will go with the $4 billion diesel version, unless the IB sees some real value in electrification. But for an extra $2 billion, I'm sceptical that they will.

What the article doesn't make clear is the overall price. HFR, (as in the corridor project) costs $4 billion, or $6 billion electrified. The fleet renewal is pegged at roughly an additional $1.5 billion. That means that base HFR is $5.5 billion, and electrification HFR is $7.5 billion.

Still, I'm hopeful. This would be a great way to launch the Infrastructure Bank with a bang.

I am REALLY hoping that they dont get cold feet over electrification just because its more expensive now. They need to buy into the long term benefits vs diesel and the fact that future conversions will for sure be even more expensive

on that note has there been any updates on the fleet renewal?

 

[crs1026]

I am still suspicious that Ottawa is pretending to look interested, while tasking VIA to study this thing to death. Until VIA can prove definitively how many angels can fit on the head of a pin - and provide name and CV's of each such angel for further vetting - the bureaucracy will say "the benefit is unproven".

It's possible that the government is supportive but anticipates heavy political pushback, and just wants the best possible data to support the debate, but that's a very cautious approach. More likely that the government will use the studies to say, "Hey, we looked at this seriously, but the benefits just weren't there. We tried, honest."

Quite the opposite from Liberals' approach to procurement in other areas - and the exact opposite from Ontario, where the Liberals promise the moon and the stars without ever getting around to delivering them. It will all come true in 2025, you know.

- Paul

 

[cplchanb]

Does VIA have the money to front this themselves? Why does it always have to beg for cash for every single project? At the very least buy the trains first which are in dire need of replacement very soon.

 

[aquateam]

I look at this map and I'm struck by how much more direct CN's rail line is. I travel Montreal-Toronto regularly by Via, and I would never book a route that went via Ottawa because it adds about 3 hours of travel time, even if they have it coming every half hour instead of every hour. If that was an HSR corridor instead of an HFR corridor, there would be enough travel times savings to make it worthwhile.

It's really too bad that the province is focusing on HSR to Southwestern Ontario, instead of Toronto-Ottawa. Toronto-Ottawa would be from the Provincial Capital to Federal Capital, the province could fund it because it's entirely within Ontario (no need to negotiate with Quebec), and it would be a starting point for Toronto-Montreal HSR (with 70% of the route already built, Quebec would definitely be interested in finishing off the route and adding Gatineau-Montreal-Quebec City. Even with just the Toronto-Ottawa leg, Via HFR becomes much more useful because you could take HSR from Toronto to Ottawa and then transfer to HFR for significant travel time savings.

One other thing I notice about their map: the route from Montreal to Quebec City is going to be lost very soon because the Mont Royal tunnel is being used for the REM.

 

[crs1026]

Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal can be just as fast as the current direct route IF the speeds can be enhanced (notice I did not use the H-word). I am still more partisan to a route through Kingston, but won't go through all that debate over again. Bottom line - the least expensive way to put VIA on its own right of way is through Ottawa.

It does say something to me that the government is so reluctant to impose a route-sharing/ defined compensation regimen on CN and CP. It can't be purely ideological.... they must believe the courts would award a pretty hefty rate of return if they were in effect to "expropriate" their way onto the lines.

Or, they would then have to pay the Investment Bank the same rate of return as CP/CN earn, and that tips the economics unfavourably. I wonder how the rate of return that the Investment Bank will offer versus compares to what CN/CP would expect based on their earnings in moving freight.

Or, they have bigger fish to fry with the freight railways, and have decided not to let passenger rail become grit in that relationship.


- Paul

 

[jys]

I look at this map and I'm struck by how much more direct CN's rail line is. I travel Montreal-Toronto regularly by Via, and I would never book a route that went via Ottawa because it adds about 3 hours of travel time, even if they have it coming every half hour instead of every hour. If that was an HSR corridor instead of an HFR corridor, there would be enough travel times savings to make it worthwhile.

Just saying, under the HFR plan you will get to Montreal faster with the higher speed trains via Ottawa than the lower speed trains via Kingston and Cornwell. The journey on dedicated VIA tracks would also be more reliable and less prone to delays. Here is some information for comparison:

Via Rail is proposing a $4-billion plan that would allow passenger trains in the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto corridor to run on dedicated tracks, which it says would allow for faster and more frequent service. Currently, Via trains face frequent delays because they share track with freight traffic.

Toronto-Ottawa
Current trip: 4:01
Dedicated tracks: 2:30

Ottawa-Montreal
Current trip: 1:50
Dedicated tracks: 1:20

Toronto-Montreal
Current trip: 4:42
Dedicated tracks: 3:45

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...e-along-quebec-ontario-route/article29638997/

 

[aquateam]

Just saying, under the HFR plan you will get to Montreal faster with the higher speed trains via Ottawa than the lower speed trains via Kingston and Cornwell. The journey on dedicated VIA tracks would also be more reliable and less prone to delays. Here is some information for comparison:

Via Rail is proposing a $4-billion plan that would allow passenger trains in the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto corridor to run on dedicated tracks, which it says would allow for faster and more frequent service. Currently, Via trains face frequent delays because they share track with freight traffic.

Toronto-Ottawa
Current trip: 4:01
Dedicated tracks: 2:30

Ottawa-Montreal
Current trip: 1:50
Dedicated tracks: 1:20

Toronto-Montreal
Current trip: 4:42
Dedicated tracks: 3:45

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...e-along-quebec-ontario-route/article29638997/

A few things:

• why would the train speeds be faster on the dedicated passenger tracks? I know freight causes delays and reduces on-time performance, but for trips that are scheduled with no freight conflicts, wouldn't they achieve the same speeds since they are limited by track geometry? Would the new dedicated passenger tracks from Toronto-Ottawa be so much straighter than the regular tracks that they can shave 1h 30 off the trip? For that, average speeds would need to be 60% faster.

• Why would Montreal to Toronto via Ottawa (3h45) be shorter than Montreal to Ottawa (1h20) + Ottawa to Toronto (2h30)? I assume it would stop in Ottawa long enough to let people on/off instead of breezing through.
• They list 4h42 as the current time Montreal to Toronto, but I know that some scheduled train times can be as low as 4h15.

From the above infographic, it's also a bit unclear if electrification (a $2+ billion add-on) is needed to achieve the travel time and subsidy reduction benefits. Electrification would save a lot on operating costs and speed up acceleration/deceleration, so I would guess that it's counted in with the benefits but not with the $4 billion price tag.

 

[DSC]

"They list 4h42 as the current time Montreal to Toronto, but I know that some scheduled train times can be as low as 4h15." The fastest train listed in the current VIA timetable is the 5pm weekday train (#68) that takes 4hr 49m. In the 1990s they had a train that took was advertised at 3.59 so we are actually moving backwards. Freight trains area REAL problem and if VIA had its own tracks they could undoubtedly return to the "under 4 hour" schedule.

 

[nfitz]

Just saying, under the HFR plan you will get to Montreal faster with the higher speed trains via Ottawa than the lower speed trains via Kingston and Cornwell.

Through Kingston - maybe. Through Peterborough? I'll be very surprised.

The journey on dedicated VIA tracks would also be more reliable and less prone to delays.

It would eliminate freight delays. But

Toronto-Ottawa
Current trip: 4:01
Dedicated tracks: 2:30

150 minutes through Peterborough? With only $4 billion for upgrades? Smith Falls to Toronto Union Station is 209.9 miles. Ottawa (Union) to Smith Falls via Ashton is 48.7 miles. So 258.6 miles. They'd have to average 103.4 mph or 166.4 km/hr. But the articles says top speed to be only 160 km/hr.

And there's no way on earth they'll be able to run much of that very curvy route at anywhere near full speed.

The number is non-sensical.

• Why would Montreal to Toronto via Ottawa (3h45) be shorter than Montreal to Ottawa (1h20) + Ottawa to Toronto (2h30)? I assume it would stop in Ottawa long enough to let people on/off instead of breezing through.

I'd assume they don't stop, or take that cutoff to avoid Train Station Station.

• They list 4h42 as the current time Montreal to Toronto, but I know that some scheduled train times can be as low as 4h15.

Before the freight became the issue, 3h59 had been scheduled for some trips with various equipment.

 

[reaperexpress]

Just saying, under the HFR plan you will get to Montreal faster with the higher speed trains via Ottawa than the lower speed trains via Kingston and Cornwell. The journey on dedicated VIA tracks would also be more reliable and less prone to delays. Here is some information for comparison:

Via Rail is proposing a $4-billion plan that would allow passenger trains in the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto corridor to run on dedicated tracks, which it says would allow for faster and more frequent service. Currently, Via trains face frequent delays because they share track with freight traffic.

Toronto-Ottawa
Current trip: 4:01
Dedicated tracks: 2:30

Ottawa-Montreal
Current trip: 1:50
Dedicated tracks: 1:20

Toronto-Montreal
Current trip: 4:42
Dedicated tracks: 3:45

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...e-along-quebec-ontario-route/article29638997/

To add on to what @nfitz said, these travel time estimates are so absurd that either whoever made them has no understanding of basic kinematics (i.e. the difference between top speed and average speed), or they were deliberate lies. On page 103 of this thread, I illustrated how unrealistic it is to state that rebuilding the Havelock Subdivision would provide better than the current 4h45 travel time from Toronto to Montreal.

Besides the completely non-sensical speeds between Toronto and Ottawa, what is the logic behind the 30 minutes saved between Ottawa and Montreal? VIA already owns 124km out of 186km, and pretty much all of it already has a 95 or 100mph (153 or 160km/h) speed limit - even the section owned by CN. I'm sure they could improve on the current 93km/h average speed somewhat by increasing the amount of double track (reducing the need to stop to meet trains going the other direction) and maybe getting some segments up to 110 mph (177 km/h), but 30 minutes? I fail to see where that magnitude of time savings is coming from.

And just to clarify (as I did last time), I entirely agree that VIA needs its own dedicated tracks in the T-O-M corridor. What I oppose is blatant falsehoods and/or incompetence. If we embark on the proposed HFR plan, we need to do so with the knowledge that the benefit will be in frequency and reliability, not scheduled speed.

 

[steveintoronto]

I entirely agree that VIA needs its own dedicated tracks in the T-O-M corridor.

And VIA has petitioned for them many times. Where do you suggest they put them? And at what cost? Electrified or not?

 

[Urban Sky]

I wish I could write more about this, but I'll have to limit myself to the two following remarks:

But the articles says top speed to be only 160 km/hr.

At the same time, other, more industry-specific sources quoted 110 mph (177 km/h) as maximum speed (i.e. still compatible with level crossings, if I read the Grade Crossing Regulations correctly) and the fleet specifications released by VIA mentioned 125 mph (201 km/h) as anticipated maximum speed of its future fleet...

[...] what is the logic behind the 30 minutes saved between Ottawa and Montreal? VIA already owns 124km out of 186km, and pretty much all of it already has a 95 or 100mph (153 or 160km/h) speed limit - even the section owned by CN.

The fastest scheduled time I could find in my timetable archive was 1:35 (train 37 in VIA timetable effective 2002/10/27). You might also recall that modest realignments of existing ROWs can be done even without triggering an environmental assessment. Then, compare the current route with the map posted by alexanderglista and you might notice a small detail. Finally, take a train from Montreal to Ottawa (or track it online) and analyse the average speed until it reaches the "mainland" at Dorion...