News   May 03, 2024
 168     0 
News   May 03, 2024
 133     0 
News   May 03, 2024
 94     0 

VIA Rail

Even if GO were to introduce 200km/hr service London would be quite a long shot to be served. Once you calculate in acceleration/deceleration + stopping at other stations on the line + slower portions of the track I imagine it would be well over a 90 minute ride. If you offer express from London, say with a stop in Brampton/Airport and Bloor, than you may as well leave that market to Via.
Have you been to Europe or Japan and used their high speed and semi-high-speed commuter services?
There's often express HSR (similar to London-Kitchener-Toronto) and semi-express HSR (similiar to London-Guelph-Kitchener-Pearson-Brampton-Toronto), running on express passing track, while allstops (like today's Kitchener GO) run on the allstop track. They pull it high speed services interspersed with allstop services on 3-track and 4-track corridors today. With at least 4 track already in Georgetown Corridor (UPX EMUs/semiexpresses/HSR to the passing track, and SmartTrack/GO RER/slow-accelerating bilevels/etc allstops to the allstop track -- 2 per direction), and the suggested Guelph bypass, this provides a way to run limited-stop expresses concurrently with allstops. Then there would be the double-track straight arrow between London and Kitchener, which zero stops on it. Remember GO RER stands for Regional Express Rail, and GO has been building passing tracks incrementally over the years.

Some of european rail infrastructure that combines allstops and express high speed, often uses 3-track or 4-tracks, with an allstop track, express track, for the various directions of service. There are many decades of Georgetown Corridor optimizations to come.

One of the many examples of Georgetown Corridor optimizations is that a highly-successful UPX is already running for 20-25 years before high speed starts operating; consider it is already time to upgrade/replace UPX infrastructure; and they did mention a Pearson stop for high speed trains: If UPX is a problem for getting in the way of high speed trains (e.g. UPX service getting in the way), remember that the high speed rail also announced a Pearson stop. A future upgraded LINK train can over the UPX spur to Woodbine Racetrack GO station(the "Pearson" high speed train stop) which service semi-express high speed trains (coming from both directions). Discontinue direct service for Weston/Bloor, let them use GO RER on the adjacent allstop track instead to Woodbine Racetrack. Torontoians would have a true express from downtown Toronto reduced to 15-20 minutes rather than 25 minutes when two tracks in Georgetown corridor becomes reassigned to completely nonstop express services (frequent high speed limited stops and highspeed expresses). It does mean the Pearson (Woodbine) stop requires transferring to a future upgraded LINK train (service every 3-4 minute, extended over UPX spur to Woodbine and serving all Pearson terminals), but this solves some major Georgetown corridor congestion contention problems after 20-25 years, and let's remember France runs high speed blievel commuter trains with as little a 3-minute headway. There are a lot of French and Japanese who do 100-150km daily commutes to work for fares similar to today's GO fares and certain routes are profitable at these fares. Remember, we're talking dates similiar to "2035" -- twenty years of further population expansion -- the era where unpowered BiLevel coaches is probably discontinued from the Kitchener route and reassigned for service expansion of other routes. It's not like Ontario is guaranteed to suddenly stop expanding GO after GO RER is finished -- what if a new 10-year 10-billon cycle happens? Such 10-billon expansions routinely happen in other countries at higher-per-capita-per-year, than if Ontario was theoretically repeats all the megaplan of the last ten years, for every subsequent 10 years. Now you see, where I am getting at -- at this continued budget, this fully covers Kitchener/London HSR by 2030s-2040s. This concludes the example (reassignment of Georgetown corridor trackage to the express-allstop architecture, fully compatible with high-speed trains & fully compatible with the current promises except stretching the 10 year timeline to a 20-25 year "start of operation" delay).

For years, Metrolinx has been incrementally widening corridors to add passing tracks, and they're even considering building brand new corridors too -- which may solve high speed rating issues (e.g. Guelph bypass, London-Kitchener, complete grade separation on entire corridor including Guelph and Brampton). The purchase of unexpected corridors (Don Valley Branch) and talk of the Eglinton GO corridor (spurred by SmartTrack talk) also show Metrolinx is open minded to brand new GO corridors, plus the Ontario deciding to go ahead with HSR feasibility study that knowingly includes purchasing high speed corridor -- so there is no current Ontario precedent (at the moment) that they will suddenly stop being interested in building new corridors.

You're not looking deep enough into the crystal ball.
It may be only X% or XX% chance, but it is definitely not a 0% percent chance. see this post for why.
 
Last edited:
They should care, because with less than 100% loads they are losing out on revenue (and profits) from those passengers. For example, a Montreal-Toronto train stopping in Oshawa could pick up Oshawa-Toronto passengers at very low marginal cost. The trains are there anyway!

IMHO VIA's whole operating model for the corridor is broken - to continue the airline analogy, GO is the no frills low cost carrier and VIA is the traditional mainline carrier. For shorter trips most people don't need high touch service, they just want a cheap fare.
 
In fact, I don't remember ever hitting the occasionally scheduled 3:50. I worked for a company in Montreal and live in Toronto so I made more than a few of these runs between 2003 and 2009. They scheduled 4 hours regularly but almost never actually hit it.

Yes, not hitting 5 hours is worse but not hitting 4 hours was unacceptably poor already.
I don't recall any schedule ever having runs better than 3:59 (i.e. 4 hours).

And I haven't seen a schedule showing much better than 4.5 hours for years. Since VIA was seperated from CN, 4.5 hours has typically been the fastest run - initially operate by the Turbo equipment. Occasionally VIA tries to do better than this, and invariably within a year or two it's back to 4.5.

I'd say having expectations of 4 hours with the current situation that's been in existence since 1978 is unrealistic. To do much better they need their own track.

As for Ontario running HSR ... it's not happening anytime soon. And it's not even proposed to either Ottawa or Montreal. VIA isn't really going to worry about services to London. They don't profit from the route, and it's been costing them money in recent years.

It's not like GO is currently competing with VIA on Corridor services! Or anytime soon. HSR must be another 10-15 years away at a minimum (do you remember Pierre Trudeau's promise to build it - where did that get us?). All we've been promised really is a study.
 
Last edited:
I'd say having expectations of 4 hours with the current situation that's been in existence since 1978 is unrealistic. To do much better they need their own track.

Right, a poor situation existed for decades and they waited until now to start thinking of a solution.


Just ignore me. I still seem to be a pissed off former VIA customer.
 
Last edited:
It's no surprise that VIA is afraid; their fares are completely out of whack relative to GO. A one-way ticket to Oshawa from Union on GO is $10.25 cash and the semi-express takes approximately 45 minutes. In contrast, the 2.5 hour Toronto-Kingston trip on VIA (on a fairly cheap "Escape" fare) is $75. For the most part, Megabus ranges from $22-41.

Given the success of low cost options around the world, I'd imagine that most people would prefer a half-price fare over the ability to check bags and buy drinks from the bar cart.
 
HSR must be another 10-15 years away at a minimum
We're in total agreement on the 'minimum'.

The devil is in the details with Re: GO/VIA being first to HSR, subject to debate, and what academically defines 'competition', also subject to debate... I still think GO fired up VIA internally a little this year on multiple fronts (private funding talk, London hub announcement, acknowledgement of Metrolinx in same sentence as freight, etc). IMHO, at least a smidgen, minimum.
 
Last edited:
The federal government funded some VIA infrastructure upgrades in the last decade, including new three-track sections between Oshawa and Brockville (built for CN, but so faster VIA trains could get around freight trains easier), new platforms and overhead walkways at Oshawa, Cobourg and Belleville to reduce track conflicts, and new passing sidings along the Brockville-Ottawa trackage (and moving Smiths Falls' station out of the CP yard area).

Obviously these measures haven't helped enough and CN isn't giving VIA priority.
 
So it's a not-for-profit created by the crown, controlled largely by the crown (with infighting as usual), on crown land, following crown regulations, and with crown backing the debt (a default would not occur in the event of a bankruptcy).

No, airport debt is not backed by the government. That is why the airport authorities were created - so that they could issue their own debt in a way the market was willing to buy.

To get back on point. This kind of setup won't work for VIA. The airport authorities and NAV Canada work because they have monopoly powers to set fees on their customers, and they can issue revenue bonds against those fees. VIA doesn't have that market power, or that key stakeholder base (the airlines) that wants them to succeed.

In short, I think the VIA proposal is a non-starter without federal backing through a P3. So why are they talking to the media about it? They should be talking to Cabinet.
 
In short, I think the VIA proposal is a non-starter without federal backing through a P3. So why are they talking to the media about it? They should be talking to Cabinet.
Worry about being left behind by freight companies and Metrolinx. Especially as federal government has been disinterested in VIA as of late.
 
Last edited:
It's no surprise that VIA is afraid; their fares are completely out of whack relative to GO. A one-way ticket to Oshawa from Union on GO is $10.25 cash and the semi-express takes approximately 45 minutes. In contrast, the 2.5 hour Toronto-Kingston trip on VIA (on a fairly cheap "Escape" fare) is $75. For the most part, Megabus ranges from $22-41.

Given the success of low cost options around the world, I'd imagine that most people would prefer a half-price fare over the ability to check bags and buy drinks from the bar cart.

This is exactly why I think what will end up happening is GO will launch a separate brand that caters to these longer distance trips (Kitchener, Niagara Falls, London, Kingston, etc), that is a hybrid between the current GO trains and VIA trains. More comfortable seats for the longer ride, but without the frills of drink service and attendants.

This would allow VIA to concentrate on express services along the QC-W corridor, without needing to serve all the little stops in between. This can either be done using HSR or using upgraded tracks to allow for higher speeds with conventional trains.

At the end of the day, GO is going to need some way of distinguishing between its RER service (serving the 416 and 905), and it's longer distance service to places beyond the contiguous GTHA. Different branding seems like the easiest way of accomplishing that, logistically. The other way of course is to create an entirely separate company, but still under Metrolinx.
 
Last edited:
This is exactly why I think what will end up happening is GO will launch a separate brand that caters to these longer distance trips (Kitchener, Niagara Falls, London, Kingston, etc), that is a hybrid between the current GO trains and VIA trains. More comfortable seats for the longer ride, but without the frills of drink service and attendants.

This would allow VIA to concentrate on express services along the QC-W corridor, without needing to serve all the little stops in between. This can either be done using HSR or using upgraded tracks to allow for higher speeds with conventional trains.

At the end of the day, GO is going to need some way of distinguishing between its RER service (serving the 416 and 905), and it's longer distance service to places beyond the contiguous GTHA. Different branding seems like the easiest way of accomplishing that, logistically. The other way of course is to create an entirely separate company, but still under Metrolinx.

So they have a brand for the airport (UP) maybe their brand for longer trips would be Away.....then Metrolinx can own GO, UP and AWAY ;)
 
Right, a poor situation existed for decades and they waited until now to start thinking of a solution.


Just ignore me. I still seem to be a pissed off former VIA customer.

You're not alone. In the last 10 years, their passenger miles are down 7% and their real passenger revenue down about 20%. The operating subsidy per PM is up 50%. I don't know if it's Porter, or the delays, but something's clearly not working.
 
VIA isn't really going to worry about services to London. They don't profit from the route, and it's been costing them money in recent years.
However, they still at least politically put a flag into London to try to talk louder in the recent din of a surge of Ontario rail-happy announcements.

VIA's CEO went to London to discuss service expansion to London.

VIA CEO Desjardins-Siciliano said:
“We really want to make London a hub from an operations point of view to service southwestern Ontario,” Desjardins-Siciliano said. “Ridership is going down, partially because we are having reliability issues around running on time due to increased congestion on the rails from more and longer freight trains, but also more regional trains in and out from metropolitan areas, Toronto and Montreal.”

On April 28th, 2015, VIA's CEO, while standing in London, has de-facto acknowledged that the Montreal AMT expansions, and the Toronto GO expansions, are COMPETITION TO VIA RIDERSHIP, directly from VIA CEO's mouth.

They slammed a metaphorical and figurative flag in London, full stop. It is clear as black and white that VIA CEO said that VIA ridership is affected by competing commuter train services.

How can you dispute that, nfitz? :D:D:D
 
Last edited:
^except he did not say that really....he said the increased regional trains in Montreal and Toronto along with more and longer freight trains are causing reliability issues around running times (a nice way of saying....more than ever we can't keep to our schedules) and that this is, partially a reason for reduced ridership.
 
So they have a brand for the airport (UP) maybe their brand for longer trips would be Away.....then Metrolinx can own GO, UP and AWAY ;)

Hahaha, nice one! UP is a good example though. It's still under the Metrolinx umbrella, but has been branded independently, and has different fares than standard GO service. A similar distinction can be made between GO RER and whatever GO ends up calling their longer-haul service (my preference is GO+, but that's just me). We've all seen how effectively a branding campaign can work in places like Brampton, where Zum has been marketed as a distinct service from BT, despite being run by the same group. Put in a few BRT lanes, some fancy bus shelters, some differently coloured buses, and you have yourself a spike in ridership.

You would end up with a clear stratification of rail services based on frequency, distance, and comfort:

GO RER: High frequency, confined service area, electrified, closer to subway rolling stock
GO+: Hourly or bi-hourly, larger service area (~2hrs from Toronto), electrified or diesel, cars are a hybrid between GO and VIA
VIA: Bi-hourly, QC-W wide service area, HSR or conventional rail, high degree of comfort
 

Back
Top