News   Mar 28, 2024
 1.1K     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 575     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 877     0 

VIA Rail

Maybe the 110 km/h number includes stops/stop time in that average. From what we've heard so far I thought the number VIA was tossing around was 170 km/h. Also 110 km/h doesn't make sense when contrasted to the travel times in the Globe and Mail article. So it also could be an error.

The current VIA service already averages more than 110 km/h including stops.
Screen Shot 2016-04-14 at 23.16.43.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2016-04-14 at 23.16.43.png
    Screen Shot 2016-04-14 at 23.16.43.png
    233.4 KB · Views: 648
Last edited:
In regards to the two news articles, the key take away is being able to travel between Ottawa (Fallowfield for me) and Toronto in 2.5 hours. At the end of the day, I don't care that much how many trains run a day, or how it is routed, as long as I can get to and from Toronto faster.

It seemed like Yves wasn't really focusing on that 2.5hr window in the first article, whereas the other article was essentially copy and pasted content from previous news releases. We'll see if it can hold true.
 
Maybe the 110 km/h number includes stops/stop time in that average. From what we've heard so far I thought the number VIA was tossing around was 170 km/h. Also 110 km/h doesn't make sense when contrasted to the travel times in the Globe and Mail article. So it also could be an error.
It's *got* to be an error. I think we're all dying to read something substantial. This may sound egotistical, collectively, but this forum has done an analysis with even less speculation that those two stories did. They had the advantage of phoning D-S and Garneau in Ottawa for comments...and claiming them to be "interviews". This forum has analyzed the nuts of bolts of it.

Edit: Reaper and ottbike: Consensus!
 
Maybe the 110 km/h number includes stops/stop time in that average. From what we've heard so far I thought the number VIA was tossing around was 170 km/h. Also 110 km/h doesn't make sense when contrasted to the travel times in the Globe and Mail article. So it also could be an error.
I'd assume that the author confused "average" with "maximum" speed and "km/h" with "mph", as the design (i.e. maximum) speed of HFR is 110 mph (i.e. 177 km/h), which happens to the best: Transport Action Canada has published an entire paper last year, which is based on the hilarious assumption that distance divided by design speed gives you realistic travel times (e.g. Montreal-Ottawa in 0.56 hours or Toronto-Winnipeg in 5.84 hours with "Very High Speed Rail" - see Table 5 at the end of the document)...
 
Last edited:
Other situation could be that Yves was confident at first that they could make the trip in 2.5hrs, but since the actual study appears to be underway now, he could be holding off on repeating that figure until he is totally sure how long it would take. "within 2.5 hrs" could have been the strategic selling point by VIA to really gain traction with potential investors and with the new government. But again, we really don't know at this point how far along the study really is.
 
Last edited:
Those articles seem more like an attempt to lobby the government than a confirmation of VIA's plans. It's blah.
 
What makes you say that VIA has ruled out the Peterborough route? I agree that the existing route makes more sense, but as of yesterday we saw in Metrolinx documents that VIA was considering the Peterborough line as an option.
The pricetag. Not to mention the Peterborough route is never likely to be as fast as the existing route. Look at how slow trains were on that line from Toronto to Ottawa when it was still used. Look how curvy it is - you'd pretty much have to build miles of new alignment. You aren't accomplishing that for only $4 billion.
 
The pricetag. Not to mention the Peterborough route is never likely to be as fast as the existing route. Look at how slow trains were on that line from Toronto to Ottawa when it was still used. Look how curvy it is - you'd pretty much have to build miles of new alignment. You aren't accomplishing that for only $4 billion.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on a few points here. I don't think the Peterborough routing is out just yet, based on the info we have.

Here is a map of the a potential Peterborough route:
nIlVQft.jpg

VIA has budgeted $2 billion for "infrastructure", which is assumed to be track infrastructure. The existing route requires track to be built alongside the existing track, whereas the Peterborough route requires track to be upgraded, and relaid on an existing, but abandoned right of way. I'd only assume the latter is cheaper. In terms of speed, the Peterborough route is actually shorter due to trains not having to make the run from the lake to Ottawa -the Peterborough route gradually arrives in Smiths Falls and then runs to Ottawa, reducing the overall distance. Also, besides a curve near Marmora the route isn't actually that curvy, at least not bad enough to really impact the speed of the trains.

I again agree it would be better to put it by the lake, but I'm not ready to rule the Peterborough routing out just yet. Especially after the Metrolinx RER report that was talked about a few days ago explicitly said they weren't sure if VIA HFR was via the lake or via Peterborough. Again, I don't pretend to know everything so correct me if I misinterpreted anything.

Also just a general question, will HFR require the entire VIA route to be double tracked, or will long sidings due just fine?
 
I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on a few points here. I don't think the Peterborough routing is out just yet, based on the info we have.
There's not a shred of evidence that VIA is considering the Peterborough routing.

I'm not sure where you guys get this stuff.

There's no shortage of documents floating around to show what they've been looking at. VIA has been talking about this for 15 years ... and they are as likely to suddenly change every plan and put it through Peterborough, as they are to start a service to the international space station.
 
Also just a general question, will HFR require the entire VIA route to be double tracked, or will long sidings due just fine?

You won't get 2:30 timing to Ottawa on single track. One blown meet between two trains and you have a delay you can't recover from. Some very short sections might be possible. If the H in HFR means anything, you will have trains meeting every half hour on an hourly service plan.

What might be feasible is building only single track for freight. If CN had to build itself a new line, I doubt they would go to doubletrack. The triple track segments that VIA did a few years ago went in quite quickly.

The Peterboro line has too many restrictive curves. They never ran more than 70 on this line, with anything. There would be some expensive design elements, such as the Trent crossing. An entire EA would be needed. I just can't see this happening.

- Paul
 
The head of Via Rail says the Crown corporation has investors in place and is ready to start construction in early 2017 on a plan that would improve service in the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto corridor. The initial $4-billion project would be limited to the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto corridor. Mr. Desjardins-Siciliano listed the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, Public Sector Pension Investment Board and Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec as interested investors.

Source: Globe and Mail
 
Very predictable, just as I thought.

CPPIB, OMERS, OTPP, PSPIB, et cetra!

Yes, I agree the Peterborough routing isn't ideal. It's just simply still on the table, if they are willing to spend the pretty penny required. I hope a better/cheaper routing free of freight can be found than the curvy Peterborough routing, though. They can get "HSR-Lite" timetables with 177kph (or heck, if they choose EMU trainsets capable of such speed, then a mere 10% upgraded to 200-240kph just to allow it to be politically advertised as "HSR") -- 2h30min Toronto to Ottawa is something that will allow me to visit my hometown way more often, and I agree -- you need precision meets and/or true double track free of freight -- without curves. I'm not sure $4bn and St. Peterborough will do 2h30min, but possibly a special agreement with CN/CP+Metrolinx to run the Bowmanville electrification earlier than expected (RER to Bowmanville...) and then a way to electrify all the way to Ottawa on an adjacent track in CN/CP corridor that connects to sections of purchased ROW. Not ideal, but it would probably keep budget to $4bn if corridor-splitting is achieved.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on a few points here. I don't think the Peterborough routing is out just yet, based on the info we have.

I again agree it would be better to put it by the lake, but I'm not ready to rule the Peterborough routing out just yet. Especially after the Metrolinx RER report that was talked about a few days ago explicitly said they weren't sure if VIA HFR was via the lake or via Peterborough. Again, I don't pretend to know everything so correct me if I misinterpreted anything.

Do we have any sense of when the route options would be announced? Are we looking at mid-2016? Also, whatever happened to the $400M that the Province and Feds were going to invest to bring passenger rail back to Peterborough? Was it contingent on further studies? Are those studies done? Would the Province and new Federal government even want to use that $400M for this or is the thinking that they'd rather use that money elsewhere? I doubt it's been put into a separate and dedicated fund.
 
There's not a shred of evidence that VIA is considering the Peterborough routing.

I'm not sure where you guys get this stuff.

Those statements you made above nfitz are wrong - there has been evidence which you are wilfully ignoring. Just a couple days ago this was published by Metrolinx. As you can see, Metrolinx isn't sure either which route will be taken. You can say that the Peterborough routing doesn't make sense, and is unrealistic, but saying "I'm not sure where you guys get this stuff" just means that you haven't been reading the thread.
upload_2016-4-13_13-43-2-png.72597
 

Back
Top