VIA Rail

[crs1026]

Haven't been following this too close, but will there be express and local service with the proposal? Or is it merely forum guesses?

In response to some initial municipal proposals, VIA has released a straw man of the local stops that it envisions. Other communities along the way have not been shy about their interest in a stop in their town. The final list of stops will no doubt be a political decision, exactly what VIA should not be encumbered with.
If there is a net benefit to VIA from adding the stops, I'm all for it. One simply has to bear in mind that these stops will be tradeoffs. I'm not so crazy about the minimalist unattended stop format....there is a minimal set of amenities that a stop ought to offer. Four billion dollars for a network of bus shelters is not how VIA should be positioning this. But nothing wrong in some low cost add-ons to the core system if that builds ridership.
I'm not so sure GO will buy in, unless they are willing to do likewise for other communities. VIA will think if its own markets first. It won't be long before Paris, Newcastle, Baden, and who knows where else will want a VIA stop too. Gotta keep the eye on the top goal.

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

But his advocacy is valuable and this question in particular is one I keep asking too.

His advocacy is valuable only to a point. When he starts undermining other options to benefit his own, then there becomes a serious problem.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[MisterF]

I agree. Advocating against a proposal that isn't up to the standard you want is counterproductive. I'm all for HSR to Montreal but I wouldn't oppose a more modest proposal like HFR or ViaFast. Either of those would build ridership and strengthen the case for eventual HSR. If you manage to get the more modest proposal killed, the more ambitious proposal will be even less likely to happen. Via's current plan is far from perfect but it's better than nothing.

 

[kEiThZ]

I raised the same point before when the idea was about the Lakeshore alignment. What compromises do they have to make for this to be politically feasible?

Interestingly, the northern alignment actually has less of those. Are these uneconomical intermediate stops annoying? Absolutely.

But there's far less of them on this alignment. And VIA won't be telling them anything about frequencies till it's up and running. I can't see any of these places getting more than 3 trains a day. And that's on the assumption that HFR is running hourly.

 

[steveintoronto]

I agree. Advocating against a proposal that isn't up to the standard you want is counterproductive. I'm all for HSR to Montreal but I wouldn't oppose a more modest proposal like HFR or ViaFast. Either of those would build ridership and strengthen the case for eventual HSR. If you manage to get the more modest proposal killed, the more ambitious proposal will be even less likely to happen. Via's current plan is far from perfect but it's better than nothing.

It must be remembered that the HFR proposal states a *minimum expected average speed*. Once sizable segments are grade separated (and the sparseness of urban centres helps in this regard) there's no limitation to raising speeds beyond that mandated for grade crossings. Especially modern electric propulsion multiple units are not only capable of exceptional acceleration, they are also capable of speeds approaching "HSR". There's enough width on much of the RoW to build grade separation later once the line is up and running. Also some of the bends that would be optimized outside of the present RoW, which would require an EA, can be tweaked later. EAs take time, but HFR is needed now.

"HSR, all or nothing" is a defeatist approach. Many if not most potential passengers will gladly pay a certain price for timely travel, but not twice that to save an hour out of five. Those folks will fly.

There's also the incremental success approach for the private entities building the RoW. Once they spend 'A' amount to see success, then they'll spend that again to extend it, rather than blowing their entire appropriation on an HSR that shows a much lower benefit-to-cost ratio. The Province is also much more likely to participate in a target that they can hit, rather than one they can't. If HFR funding is announced (private or not) the Province would be foolish not to participate to satisfy the "HSR" promise they can't keep.

Desjardins-Siciliano has this right, albeit I suspect investors with deep-enough pockets to finance the RoW might not stop there. They might suggest buying the rolling stock too (and they wouldn't have to put it out to tender) and just having VIA run the service side of things. That would actually make it a lot easier for everyone concerned.

The money is there in private hands. Far more than for projects like this. All the investors need is a welcoming climate.

 

[crs1026]

The money is there in private hands. Far more than for projects like this. All the investors need is a welcoming climate.

Nothing will send these prospective investors running for the hills faster than seeing politicians impose service burdens and costs before the business plan is even final.

If VIA can articulate how these stops enhance the bottom line, great. But if VIA allows the impression that the business case is being shaped around the politics, not so great.

The governance model for this project is even murkier than the swamps around Maberly.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

If VIA can articulate how these stops enhance the bottom line, great. But if VIA allows the impression that the business case is being shaped around the politics, not so great.

You jump to concussions (sic) even before seeing a business plan. There's absolutely no indication so far that it would be VIA doing the commuter stops. If private investors pay for the line, and the rolling stock if that becomes the touted plan, which I see as quite likely, then they can lease to Metrolinx or whomever else wishes to run commuter service. As long as VIA is provided the slots they sign up for, then where's the problem? Or Metrolinx could run the route as part of RER in peak with their own fully compatible RER stock (With CBTC dispatched from the one HFR is)

I find it astounding, if not so Canadian, that some base their observations on what you can't do as much as what you can. At least you're no longer trying to use the argument that express and local trains can't share the same single track, albeit with passing loops.

Does this render D-S' prognostications on commuter stops 'coming to a location near you' as false? Hardly. It's the establishment of the HFR business case to private investors that enables it. Commuter too? It further makes the line financially viable. Metrolinx have produced a report of well over a hundred pages detailing it. And freight at night as well. (Some of that might be Premium Express, but not stack trains due to the catenary) It all improves the bottom line. Steve Munro's latest blog displays the projected population growth for Durham Region: 90% 2011 to 2041.
https://stevemunro.ca/2017/08/21/metrolinx-previews-the-next-big-move/#more-18391

Places to Grow? Now who was it touting doing it on the Shield? (Or Moraine south of it). Durham Region will need commuter rail access in the north of the region more than ever.

Would Metrolinx (Or VIA or whomever runs commuter) cover costs of commuter rail with farebox return? Not initially. Metrolinx doesn't and won't on a number of train routes, that being a given on UPX. But it still saves the outlay of even more money to build roads to have these people drive, let alone improve the quality of life. A private RoW owner would lease at a rate to Mlx guaranteed to be above cost. Ditto to VIA. Or they wouldn't build it in the first place.

It's an odd thing, as this is how rail was built in this nation (and almost all others). As to why it's such an odd concept now is troubling...

 

[crs1026]

I find it astounding, if not so Canadian, that some base their observations on what you can't do as much as what you can.

That's what investors and lenders do before deciding whether to lend or invest - they look for the flaws and postulate what might go wrong. Nothing wrong with considering what their reaction will be to risks of this proposal.

At least you're no longer trying to use the argument that express and local trains can't share the same single track, albeit with passing loops.

I still am, in a qualified way. You can mix any types of service on a single track line, if you accept the time penalty of the meets. What I question is how VIA will keep its express trains on an expedited schedule, while meeting commuter trains as well as the VIA trains, while keeping capital costs low. High-tech signalling (a cost item) may predict the best meeting pattern, but it can't reduce the minimum time it takes for a train to clear the main line and wait. The limiting factor is how far apart the sidings are. More sidings gives more capacity but costs more. More meets adds waiting time for more trains.

Would Metrolinx (Or VIA or whomever runs commuter) cover costs of commuter rail with farebox return? Not initially. Metrolinx doesn't and won't on a number of train routes, that being a given on UPX. But it still saves the outlay of even more money to build roads to have these people drive, let alone improve the quality of life. A private RoW owner would lease at a rate to Mlx guaranteed to be above cost. Ditto to VIA. Or they wouldn't build it in the first place.

It's an odd thing, as this is how rail was built in this nation (and almost all others). As to why it's such an odd concept now is troubling...

I support investing in rail over highway build, yes. But if ML indicated its interest in contracting for service, the owner would consider the incremental capital investment needed to do this while protecting its other business activities and ensuring an appropriate return to its investors. Will ML be willing to pay its share? Don't jump to this conclusion. And don't assume the commuter service can overlay on HFR without incremental investment (shades of Tory and Smarttrack!)

It's the implicit contradictions in VIA's pitch that gives me pause. Fast frequent trains with improved end to end trip times on a bumpy curvy single track that has to be built from the ground up but at a fairly modest capital spend, but requiring high end signalling and electrification to mitigate the fundamental issues of constrained track speed and meet delays. Promising an end to the existing subsidy but retaining and improving service on the existing line notwithstanding the loss of all current 'through' revenue from that currently subsidised route. Funding from private capital at a rate above government borrowing rate but needing some form of government backstopping to secure investor comfort but inviting some level of political override to decisions. Runs in the black but doesn't interest investors on an open market, least of all CN or CP.

Is it possible? Theoretically. I do hope I'm wrong. It just feels a tad over optimistic. Too many overlapping assumptions.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

Nothing will send these prospective investors running for the hills faster than seeing politicians impose service burdens and costs before the business plan is even final.

If VIA can articulate how these stops enhance the bottom line, great. But if VIA allows the impression that the business case is being shaped around the politics, not so great.

The governance model for this project is even murkier than the swamps around Maberly.

- Paul

Agreed. But there's several ways for even an investor to look at this. It isn't just about politicians. These projects are subject to all kinds of local barriers. From land expropriations to environmental impacts. Promising service has a way to ameliorating opposition. I doubt the investors mind if the bulk of the business (Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal) isn't impacted.

In some case, there's actually a case to make for commuter traffic. If Toronto-Ottawa is 2.5 hrs. Then Peterborough becomes a commuter town for Toronto. Perth and Smith's Falls become commuter towns for Ottawa.

Places like Pontypool? Maybe every third train will stop there. They'll be happy to get something over nothing. And the 5 minutes should be made up elsewhere. I am actually starting to think think, there won't be a milk run. Just every train taking up one other random stops each along the way. The only really useless stops I see are Pontypool and Sharbot Lake (I think Tweed is defensible with Prince Edward county being close enough). I can't see every train stopping at both those stations.

 

[kEiThZ]

Just an addendum on commuter service.....

They are never profitable! Seriously, when has anybody made a profit on commuter rail? So no investor will be touching them.

I have yet to see Metrolinx pledge anything more than some BRT and GO Lakeshore extensions for Durham. And this is for a public agency that can actually lose money. I doubt any investor is going to be gunning to run separate commuter services theres. At best, whoever ends up owning the track (and I think it'll be a consortium) will get fees if Metrolinx decides to start GO services. But we're a long ways away from that in my opinion. In reality, at least till 2030, and probably a lot later, commuter service on these lines will mean exactly what it does on VIA's Lakeshore services. A handful of well-heeled commuters taking VIA from Peterborough or Smith's Falls just like they do from Coburg and Belleville today.

 

[kEiThZ]

Will add.

It's super depressing to read other forums and constantly have people thinking that VIA Rail is as expensive as air fare in the Corridor. I see this in comments on articles, on Reddit, everywhere. Why the heck do people think that?

VIA really needs to work on its public perception. And they really need to communicate about the Dedicated Track project better.

 

[cplchanb]

Just an addendum on commuter service.....

They are never profitable! Seriously, when has anybody made a profit on commuter rail? So no investor will be touching them.

I have yet to see Metrolinx pledge anything more than some BRT and GO Lakeshore extensions for Durham. And this is for a public agency that can actually lose money. I doubt any investor is going to be gunning to run separate commuter services theres. At best, whoever ends up owning the track (and I think it'll be a consortium) will get fees if Metrolinx decides to start GO services. But we're a long ways away from that in my opinion. In reality, at least till 2030, and probably a lot later, commuter service on these lines will mean exactly what it does on VIA's Lakeshore services. A handful of well-heeled commuters taking VIA from Peterborough or Smith's Falls just like they do from Coburg and Belleville today.

well I guess it all depends on the network and usage. I'm pretty sure that JR and their vast network is very profitable. Then again they are on another planet when it comes to rail.
I guess NA rail is still in catchup mode to the rest of the developed world.

 

[steveintoronto]

ust an addendum on commuter service.....

They are never profitable! Seriously, when has anybody made a profit on commuter rail? So no investor will be touching them.

Which completely misses the point as discussed prior. If the RoW is built by a private consortium, which is the plan, Metrolinx will lease or otherwise compensate said owner(s) to run commuter service on that track. The bottom line is *It's Cheaper Than Building Highways*!

Do CN and CP give away track slots to Metrolinx now? How about to VIA?

well I guess it all depends on the network and usage. I'm pretty sure that JR and their vast network is very profitable.

Indeed, all of Japan Railways is now privatized into separate sections. Tokyo and Osaka both run very profitable commuter lines, as do Hong Kong and other locales. But it completely misses the point. Even beyond those operations, *many* systems are run by private operators, and they are paid by the jurisdiction in which they run, or by regional or national governments. Ironically, GO Transit has the highest farebox return of any transit system in North America. Next? The TTC.

Meantime, it's the Chinese most likely to invest in the HFR RoW, albeit Mainland Chinese, now the largest holder of US debt in the world:

MTR Corporation Limited (Chinese: 香港鐵路有限公司; literally: "Hong Kong Railway Corporation Limited") is a company listed on the Hong Kong Exchange, and a component of Hang Seng Index. MTR runs Hong Kong's Mass Transit Railway (MTR), and is also a major property developer and landlord in Hong Kong. It also invests in railways in different parts in the world, and has obtained contracts to operate rapid transit systems in London, Stockholm, Beijing, Shenzhen, Hangzhou, Melbourne, and Sydney.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR_Corporation

Metrolinx didn't publish their Peterborough Rail Study for fancy decoration. Once HFR is established along the Havelock route, there's *every* reason for Metrolinx to fully co-operate and inter-operate with VIA to service the line at least as far as Peterborough.

And for anyone claiming that Pontypool has no cause d'etre as a commuter station, take a look at the map, folks. Lindsay, directly to the north, is larger than Cobourg. And larger than many catchment areas presently served by GO.

The Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study is available here:
Peterborough Rail Study Final Report PO #1138 - Metrolinx

From an eml I sent to a colleague earlier today:

Just reading today's FT, and I was amazed to see this chart, note that Canada is now leading the G7 for infrastructure investment: (See below)
[...]
...reading the entire (Financial Times) article. The parallels for Canada and rail infrastructure are striking. Also many of the comments are well worth reading. It's the first of a series the FT is doing on infrastructure.

Here's one paragraph that I think applies to HFR: (and MOOSE and other projects too):

[...] For example, private investors say that ministers could entice more money from them by identifying proposed infrastructure that will serve as long-term sources of revenue. “To attract private financing for infrastructure projects, the government or sponsor needs to demonstrate to investors where the future long-term income stream will come from,” says Jonathan Stevens, head of European infrastructure debt at BlackRock. Meanwhile, experts also say the government needs to engage more effectively with the public to overcome local opposition to projects that could provide wider benefits. This is most apparent at Heathrow airport, London, where politicians have repeatedly changed their stances on expansion....]

D-S, Morneau/Garneau and the InfraBank might want to consider, as I've alluded to in XXX, to invest in the rolling stock as well as the RoW. But is the Cdn public ready for the most enthusiastic investors to jump into doing that? The Chinese? Mr XXX might have a few more comments to add on that one. That New Brunswick operation could assemble kits to populate HFR with their own stock, untendered. Only stipulation, AFAIK, would be 25% Cdn content including assembly.
[...] (some info XXX for privacy)

This is public domain from the OECD, so I can post this with the link for above article:

https://www.ft.com/content/c907081e-80c7-11e7-94e2-c5b903247afd

And from the Globe and Mail. This is Premium, so I might reference some snippets later, but for now, for any of you wanting to read the full copy who don't have subscription, it might be available on PressReader.

How China built a global rail behemoth that’s leaving Western train makers behind
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/re...-western-train-makers-behind/article35272833/
And yes, it details BBD...I'll quote two paragraphs under Fair Use Doctrine:

[...]
Nine years since it stepped outside its own borders and made its first overseas acquisition, CRRC has embarked on a global pursuit for market share. The megamanufacturer, formed in 2015 through the merger of China's state-owned makers of locomotives and train cars, is the largest industrial company of its kind on Earth. And with its first contract win in Canada and plans to build its first Canadian plant under way, it is changing the game for global train making.

The Montreal order comes after other CRRC wins, in Philadelphia, Chicago and Los Angeles. It took less than five years for China to build the world's biggest high-speed rail network, a system running almost entirely on rolling stock supplied by CRRC's former entities – CNR and CSR. It might take even less time for CRRC to assume its spot as the yardstick against which the planet's rail-equipment manufacturers are measured. With 190,000 employees and annual revenue topping $32-billion, CRRC has become a new national export champion.

"The new player is the biggest in the world and has already changed the game," said Maria Leenen, chief executive officer at transportation consultancy SCI Verkehr in Hamburg, Germany.
[...]

If you don't have a Globe subscription, for the almost giveaway price for their introductory offer, this article alone is worth the cost.

 

[cplchanb]

just goes to show how egotistic and ignorant the western world is towards china. with all the stereotypes about copying (which they still do...) clouding their vision, they
totally became complacent in the fact that the chinese learned and acquired their skills and now has totally blindsided the world.

 

[lead82]

Will add.

It's super depressing to read other forums and constantly have people thinking that VIA Rail is as expensive as air fare in the Corridor. I see this in comments on articles, on Reddit, everywhere. Why the heck do people think that?

VIA really needs to work on its public perception. And they really need to communicate about the Dedicated Track project better.

People think that because it's true. The value of the train is that it should be cheaper for the much slower service. VIA charges rates that are often on par with flying, especially if booking last minute or on weekends (especially long weekends). I've often seen prices as high as $250-$300 per person to travel Toronto-Montreal return. That's on par with flying but much slower. The problem is VIAs pricing strategy. They use an airline model instead of a train model. Prices for trains should be a lot lower. VIA needs to offer more cars on their trains during busy times to lower fare.