VIA Rail

[mdrejhon]

That's 120 miles of double track for a 250 mile line.

The $4-billion-dollar question:
How much is the cost difference between simply protecting for future double-tracking (and double tracking only 120 miles of it), versus double-tracking the whole way?

There's also Toronto-Montreal to consider, which doesn't seem to have as much time savings as Toronto-Ottawa. Wonder if that means more generous HFR upgrades (i.e. full double track) are already being focussed onto Toronto and Ottawa, while not the case for Toronto-Montreal?

 

[kEiThZ]

If the Peterborough route was chosen (and that's a big if), it would have a pretty big impact on Metrolinx infrastructure and service patterns, both positive and negative. The positive is that Metrolinx would have a ready-made electrified corridor to run GO service to Peterborough. The downside is that it would put further constraints on either the Stouffville line (for which the RER math is tough already given the size of the corridor), or the Richmond Hill line (for which the alignment through the Don Valley is problematic).

Honestly, the Richmond Hill corridor would be my preference, since that would chip away at the potential bottleneck on Lakeshore East, leaving it almost exclusively for GO. If Metrolinx could get VIA to pay for a lot of the Don Valley upgrades, the northern portion of the RH line would be relatively easy to work with, leaving Milton as the only non-RER corridor.

Also, entering Toronto via the Don Valley would be one of the most impressive vistas for intercity rail in the world. I know that's a vain reason to support something, but it's a pretty positive intangible.

RH line might also allow for a better situated VIA Rail station in the East. It'd be better situated for York Region for just slightly less inconvenience for Durham and Scarborough.

There's also Toronto-Montreal to consider, which doesn't seem to have as much time savings as Toronto-Ottawa

3h 45 mins core to core make it almost competitive with air.

Consider if you take Porter: 45 min pre-flight (including transit from Union) minimum + 1 hr flight + 30 mins to the core in Montreal. The train will be 1.5 hrs longer.
Alternatively from Pearson: 30 mins (UPE) + 45 mins pre-flight + 1 hr flight + 30 mins to the core in Montreal. The train will be 1 hr longer.

And those are based on minimum times, with no flex. In reality, wait times for connections and the need to arrive before minimum times will narrow the gap. Add to that, the ability to work comfortably on the train, and you'll see a chunk of business travel diverted to VIA.

On Toronto-Ottawa? With the right pricing, VIA can hurt the bus companies and substantially hurt the airlines. With 2.5 hr service, VIA rail will be nearly as fast as air core to core. Only thing needed is the right price.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Wifi and far more comfort provides a real improvement over a plane - especially if flying the likes of Air Canada instead of Porter. I expect it to be very popular instead of flying.

 

[mdrejhon]

3h 45 mins core to core make it almost competitive with air.

No disagreement. Nothing to sneeze at !

But still... Why more absolute time lopped off a shorter Toronto-Ottawa route (1.5h saved), than Toronto-Montreal (1h saved)?

 

[TOareaFan]

No disagreement. Nothing to sneeze at !

But still... Why more absolute time lopped off a shorter Toronto-Ottawa route (1.5h saved), than Toronto-Montreal (1h saved)?

I am going to guess that, maybe, there were already longer stretches on the Montreal run that higher speeds were attained? Purely a guess.

 

[nfitz]

No disagreement. Nothing to sneeze at !

But still... Why more absolute time lopped off a shorter Toronto-Ottawa route (1.5h saved), than Toronto-Montreal (1h saved)?

Because the Montreal trains will run through Ottawa.

It's not clear to me though whether they are using the existing alignment, or going back to new alignment from Kingston to Smith Falls they've been talking about for a couple of decades now.

 

[mdrejhon]

Because the Montreal trains will run through Ottawa.

Oh! Now that makes sense! But the infographic suggested otherwise.

With just two legs instead of three legs, you can purchase and upgrade a lot more dedicated corridor. Enough to make it faster to run trains through Ottawa than directly to Montreal. ...If they can really manage a reliable 3h45min including Ottawa.

 

[Voltz]

Oh! Now that makes sense! But the infographic suggested otherwise.

With just two legs instead of three legs, you can purchase and upgrade a lot more dedicated corridor. Enough to make it faster to run trains through Ottawa than directly to Montreal. ...If they can really manage a reliable 3h45min including Ottawa.

It must be via Ottawa since the combined times for the Toronto-Ottawa segment and the Ottawa-Montreal segments is nearly identical to the Toronto-Montreal travel times.

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

 

[steveintoronto]

VIA already owns a single-tracked line between Coteau-Ottawa-Smith Falls-Brockville, where frequent sidings allow an on-time performance which is far superior to what VIA can currently achieve on the vast majority of its network where it does not control dispatching.

Hadn't had a chance to thank you for an excellent and prompt reply. That was the answer I was looking for, but thought best to get it from an authority, didn't have time at work to dig for reference.

 

[Urban Sky]

Those are shorter lines. Definitely, if you have a short segment with some passing track at either end, and if you can run trains fast enough, you don't have anything passing en route. So single track works.

For Toronto-Ottawa, if you accept the 2:30 running time and take HFR at its monicker, you'd potentially have hourly trains meeting each other every half hour. That's a meet at one end and four en route. You'd need say 20 miles of double track at each end and four 20-mile passing sections. That's 120 miles of double track for a 250 mile line.

Short sidings are going to add waiting time and 2:30 is pretty ambitious unless you increase track speed further, which costs money. The passing sections have to be long enough that both trains can keep up speed, even given small variations in schedule adherence.

The current Ottawa-Montreal single track service works because timings are slower, trains aren't that frequent, and some of the meets happen east of Coteau on double track. Speed the line up and step up towards hourly service, and single track won't work as well.

- Paul

The $4-billion-dollar question:
How much is the cost difference between simply protecting for future double-tracking (and double tracking only 120 miles of it), versus double-tracking the whole way? [...]

[...] With just two legs instead of three legs, you can purchase and upgrade a lot more dedicated corridor. Enough to make it faster to run trains through Ottawa than directly to Montreal. [...]

The current design of the HFR route is based on the objective of minimizing the required capital expenditure while maximizing the benefits, essentially trying to define the cheapest, but still practical game-changer. I personally consider this a prudent strategy as the multi-billion price tag is what has derailed all significant passenger rail renewal concepts along the Canadian Corridor so far. However, if whoever invests into the project insists on double-tracking, the line will be double-tracked from day one and the same is true for electrification, as both measures increase the utility of the line, but also the required capital by a considerable margin. Otherwise, the line would be built with provisions for both to be added at a later point. Once the line is operational (in the non-electrical and single-tracked scenario), it would become clear very quickly whether these additions are necessary and there would be no sunk costs, as all bridges would presumably be already prepared for double-tracking and diesel trains could be transferred to the non-electrified rest of the VIA network.

[...] 3h 45 mins core to core make it almost competitive with air. [...]
On Toronto-Ottawa? [...] With 2.5 hr service, VIA rail will be nearly as fast as air core to core. [...]

[...] ...If they can really manage a reliable 3h45min including Ottawa.

If you focus too much on the travel times, you are missing the actual novelty of HFR (High Frequency Rail, as opposed to High Speed Rail): Having trains every 1 or 2 hours reduces the time you have to wait after your preferred departure time or before your preferred arrival time and operating over a dedicated infrastructure will reduce the frequency and magnitude of delays to values which are more in line with passenger rail operations in Europe.

[...] With the right pricing, VIA can hurt the bus companies and substantially hurt the airlines. [...] Only thing needed is the right price.

With a fully flexible one-way Business Class fare of $293.80 between Ottawa and Toronto, VIA Rail is already price competitive against Porter with a "Flexible" price of $371 (all taxes included). In competition to the bus, the cheapest ticket for this Monday is $40 more expensive than the bus ($77 vs $37 - both prices before taxes, as Greyhound somehow gets away with asking for Credit Card details before indicating the actual final price), which I would also consider competitive once HFR provides travel options every 1 or 2 hours, a highly predictable arrival time and time savings of more than half the current scheduled bus travel time of 6 hours. I therefore don't see why VIA's current pricing would not be competitive once the product has been enhanced through HFR (in fact, I think it's already very competitive, even with the far from optimal product we are able to offer today without control over the dispatching of our trains)...

 

[steveintoronto]

Otherwise, the line would be built with provisions for both to be added at a later point

This makes perfect sense, albeit the difference in cost between single-tracking and twin would an interesting projection. If the investors are really serious about this, it might be worth their while to invest 20% more to see a 25% increase in their return. (Purely hypothetical projections).

once HFR provides travel options every 1 or 2 hours

Now this allows a projection of single track outside of the reach of regional service, and double within. Your prior example of the efficiency of dedicated single track sections renders twin track unnecessarily expensive and needless between, for instance, Bowmanville and the Que border, but east and west of that section, since it will be within regional rail reach, twin track would make good sense, as AMT and Metrolinx would be enthusiastic partners. What would appear to make a lot more sense is the savings on only investing in single track where need indicates can be put towards electrifying the entire length. That would mandate separated junctions and crossovers with freight, since CN has 'sworn' to never allow their trains to pass under catenary...a bit of an odd missive, since they do in Chicago, but whatever, the added cost of that would go much further to assuring an accurate timetable.

 

[mdrejhon]

Urban Sky, check this media coverage:
http://www.lfpress.com/2016/04/15/via-angling-for-own-track-rails-against-high-speed

This is very anti-VIA. I agree with the HFR plan as being cost effective.

Ideally VIA needs to market HFR as a gradual path towards HSR and not against.
This needs to be strongly addressed as "HFR does not prevent eventual HSR".

In fact, in the light of Ontario TKL HSR, a high speed GO train would definitely eat into VIA revenues. They all need to go to the table and discuss this at length on thr "HSR marketing" topic, to the theoreticals of running possible 240kph capable HFR trainsets faster on TKL (240kph) than on TOM (177kph). Basically, Ontario HSR offers VIA an HFR extension to London (while letting VIA run HSR). All depends on timing of construction for each leg. They can share!

So, VIA could need a Plan B to "do an Acela" if forced to go to HSR. There is some sudden 2018 acceleration (maybe not) of the Ontario HSR plan.

I suspect for only 1 billion upgrade (as Phase 2) as a compromise VIA could get to market "HSR" simply by choosing 200-240kph capable EMUs and upgrade 10 percent to 200-240kph, shave a few mins off and get to market "HSR" even if it is 90 percent HFR.

That is what Acela Express really is...
....and when Ontario bulds their HSR the trains can accelerate and whoosh Kitchener-London at full HSR track speed, especially if they buildout slower option than the possibly-too-luxury 300kph speed.

IIRC, there are (I believe) even some city-pairs on the Acela Express route with no 240kph rated sections, so 240kph-capable trains on a non-240kph-capable Toronto-Kingston would not be with precedent, getting to do a few 240kph sprints only in sections between Kingston-Ottawa and Kitchener-London.

Given how well VIA performs already compared to Acela, it may not take *much* -- maybe even slightly under a billion on top of HFR -- to be a more honest HSR than Acela Express.

But the press does not know that 177kph HFR will be much faster average speed than Acela Express!

The "upgrade" (minor speedup of small sections, which will help marketing, and increase ridership) can be done later as a Phase 2 as the HSR may not happen till long after HFR is easily running, and perhaps in a way that is palatable to investors... VIA even said HFR can be a path to HSR when it someday made sense, so this vision isn't incompatible with VIA.

The trick is to prevent the negative press that might "derail the plan just because it's not HSR" -- this sort of negative press, if grown unchecked, can prevent HFR from happening.

 

[steveintoronto]

Urban Sky, check this media coverage:
http://www.lfpress.com/2016/04/15/via-angling-for-own-track-rails-against-high-speed

This is very anti-VIA. ...

One more fluff press-piece so that the author can stay on the payroll of the hurting Post Media. The problem is that in the virtual vacuum of information that we now have, we resort to *opinion pieces* like this to fill the void. I'll try and detail more later, but this author is ...ummmm...let me quote:

But Via president and chief executive Yves Desjardins-Siciliano sees it differently, attacking high-speed rail and arguing that conventional trains are better.

This author's next job is with the National Perspirer. "Ringo Starr denies murdering Sharon High Speed"!

There's little doubt that D-S is playing an intense game, he's playing for high stakes, and I hope he wins, albeit whether that's under the VIA banner or not is the real question, but awful articles like these aren't worth a negative dime for a diminished dozen.

 

[CapitalSeven]

It must be via Ottawa since the combined times for the Toronto-Ottawa segment and the Ottawa-Montreal segments is nearly identical to the Toronto-Montreal travel times.

Nearly, but not quite. If they were going to run all of the service through Ottawa, essentially that would mean it would be a single route with a stop in Ottawa. But the T-O and O-M routes add up to 5 minutes longer than the T-M, yet a stop in Ottawa would add at least 15 minutes due to deceleration and loading, so the time would have to be about 4:05, not 3:45.

 

[steveintoronto]

Much better newspaper article here, one that does the cause justice:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...ew-trains-frequent-service-to-woo-riders.html