VIA Rail

[robmausser]

There's no such middle route though. It's a really simple choice. Stay on the lakeshore and serve Kingston with better service, while screwing over Ottawa and the other major metros with slower service. Or separate inter-metro service from lakeshore service.

As for serving Kingston in the future with HSR, I don't see the point and I don't see it as likely. Let's say HFR is progressively upgraded. Some kind of turnout for Kingston is 60 km from Sharbot Lake. Building something like that from scratch would be well over a billion dollars. Possibly even closer to $2B. To serve a subset of travelers from Kingston save maybe 30-40 mins for their trip to Toronto or Ottawa. This is a business case that will never close. It will always be easier to simply spend that money improving the entire lakeshore service so that all the communities along the route can benefit. Not just Kingston.

Theres no lakeshore HSR at any point if CN still owns the line. Period.

Important to remember.

 

[crs1026]

I agree that this is the threshold for non-HSR. It's unfortunate that HFR is closer to 5 hrs. I hope post-launch, we will see investments that bring Toronto-Montreal down to at least under 4.5 hrs within 5 years. And hopefully down to 4 hrs within a decade. Realistically, getting it down to 4 hrs means cutting Ottawa-Montreal by 10-15 mins and Toronto-Ottawa by 30-50 mins. That would probably require several billion in capital to do a lot of straightening, track twinning and grade separation, to get an average speed of 145 kph for entire 580 km stretch.

I'm with you in spirit, but I think you may be underestimating the time line. That second capital envelope will take a few years of successful operation to raise. The Business Case will compete with other priorities. Then you have to build.

I would like to see VIA make every possible attempt to prioritise the Ottawa-Montreal segment for "perfection", as it's the shortest city pair segment where one could build in all possible speed to demonstrate the merits of the further spend. And any time shaved off that segment would possibly offer "bang for the buck" towards reduced Toronto-Montreal trip time, also.

The big challenge in lowering trip time is actually the end bits. We don't know how VIA will enter Toronto, but either option will require slower running west of Tapscott. Ottawa-Fallowfield is also slow, and regulatory restrictions may prevail. Dorval to Montreal is very much restricted, and De Beaujeu-Dorval presents challenges in terms of shared assets. Everywhere the line is shared, the prospect of slow crossovers and freight conflicts is an issue. There will inevitably be slower speed segments imposed in Peterboro, Tweed, Sharbot Lake, and Perth. None of these is a dealbreaker on its own, but the "perfect" timing is not achievable on a significant number of route miles. The speed will be respectable - but one has to keep one's expectations in check.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

Theres no lakeshore HSR at any point if CN still owns the line. Period.

Important to remember.

And yet there are so many folks nostalgic for ViaFast which was pretty much that.

I agree with you. But apparently a half century of failure isn't enough to convince some diehard railfans.

 

[2transpo]

Here's the link to a readable version of the article shared here:

OKthePK - Public Canadian Railway News

Canadian railway news collected from a public source on the world wide web.

okthepk.ca

 

[nfitz]

While using the Winchester Sub would technically be an option, I don't think it is a very likely one given that I don't think CP would be willing to have their network disconnected from the Atlantic ports.

Why would it? Add a single track alongside the Winchester Sub. Grade separate the junction if necessary.. Don't even have to connect the tracks ...

 

[robmausser]

And yet there are so many folks nostalgic for ViaFast which was pretty much that.

I agree with you. But apparently a half century of failure isn't enough to convince some diehard railfans.

Correct me, but I believe ViaFast existed when CN was still a crown corp.

Then it might have been possible.

 

[Allandale25]

^ Doesn't look like it from the Wikipedia page. CN went private in 1995 and VIAFast was "initially studied in 2002".

ViaFast - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Some of the VIAFast documents are located here: http://www.westoncommunitycoalition.ca/node/13

There's even a UT thread for this started in 2009. Last post in 2010.

Chrétien Liberals had plan for fast rail: report

Chrétien Liberals had plan for fast rail: report $2.6-billion project for fleet of intercity trains cancelled by Martin government, ex-VIA boss said BY MIKE DE SOUZA A newly released confidential report about speeding up Canada's passenger rail service made a series of recommendations that...

urbantoronto.ca

Also, from the Wiki article:

In January 2008, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Quebec Premier Jean Charest announced that they would start their own study of high-speed service in The Corridor. Quoting a the study from 1995, Charest noted that the estimated $18 billion would cost about $23 billion given the inflation during the intervening period. The two premiers stated they would spend $2 million on a new study to bring the proposal up to date. "We think it's time to conduct our own study that takes into account some of the new realities," McGuinty said.[18] [updated link: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/gove...-speed-trains-between-quebec-ontario-1.715083]

I struck through "the" and replaced it with "a" because using "the" almost gives the impression they were quoting the VIAFast study and not the 1995 study.

 

[nfitz]

Correct me, but I believe ViaFast existed when CN was still a crown corp.

Then it might have been possible.

By that logic ViaFast is possible.

VIA Fast was a decade after CN was privatized.

 

[Catenary]

Why would it? Add a single track alongside the Winchester Sub. Grade separate the junction if necessary.. Don't even have to connect the tracks ...

There's room on the Winchester Sub - CP pulled out the second track this past summer, leaving only a few long sidings. They installed CTC to manage it, and sent the CWR out to improve the MMA/CMQ. If a bypass was needed badly enough, there is room to re-lay that second track, sidings might not be necessary.

 

[crs1026]

There's room on the Winchester Sub - CP pulled out the second track this past summer, leaving only a few long sidings. They installed CTC to manage it, and sent the CWR out to improve the MMA/CMQ. If a bypass was needed badly enough, there is room to re-lay that second track, sidings might not be necessary.

I don’t understand the interest in the Winchester Sub.... once one gets to Smiths Falls, might as well carry on to Ottawa on the existing line. Not much longer and hugely cheaper than having two routes in parallel so close together. Taking a short cut through Winchester would save a few minutes of trip time, but at a significant construction and operating cost. That idea seems like the least justifiable of any of the options that have been floated.

Where things get interesting is between De Beaujeu and Dorion. One could make a case for VIA cutting the corner and using the Winchester Sub (which remains double track that far east) to Ste Annes. That would keep HFR off CN through Coteau (a pinch point) and could use the CP bridges to cross the Ottawa River. CP is a bit less busy than CN, and the result would be less conflict with freight.

- Paul

 

[MisterF]

While using the Winchester Sub would technically be an option, I don't think it is a very likely one given that I don't think CP would be willing to have their network disconnected from the Atlantic ports.

Besides, you are totally missing my point. I was trying to say that having completely separate and isolated ROWs for Montreal-Toronto and Ottawa-Toronto (like some people seem to be promoting), is not only expensive, but unnecessary since the shortest possible route for Montreal-Toronto could have branches to Ottawa and Kingston with the bulk of the ROW being shared.



If you go back to my original post, you will see that I said,:



In other words, this would only happen once when demand has increased to a point where HFR is exceeding its capacity and upgrades are needed anyway. The thing about intercity rail is once you have hourly service, increasing frequency beyond that doesn't provide significant benefit, so rather than having 30 minute service through Ottawa, it would make more sense to keep it at the (post HFR) hourly frequency and add hourly express trains from Montreal to Toronto. As I said:





I still remain unconvinced that a zig-zag Toronto-Kingston-Ottawa-Montreal route is the best one for a future HSR plan. I would rather see a route that goes down the middle with branches to Kingston and Ottawa.

I never understood the compulsion among people on forums like these to relegate Ottawa to a branch line. I don't think a lot of people are really getting how much ridership Ottawa generates and how connected it is to Toronto. It's a critical source of ridership and having it on the same line as Montreal and Toronto brings significant operating efficiencies. Building another line to by-pass Ottawa (on a freight mainline no less) would have a huge cost for very little distance saved and negligible benefit. Every train using it would miss out on a lot of ridership and revenue in Ottawa. Bypassing Ottawa to save some time getting to Montreal makes about as much sense as by-passing Montreal to speed up trains to Quebec City.

Just about every HSR line zig-zags to hit major cities along the route. The line from Rome to Milan doesn't by-pass Bologna. The line from Brussels to Frankfurt doesn't by-pass Cologne. You get the point.

 

[EnviroTO]

I don’t understand the interest in the Winchester Sub.... once one gets to Smiths Falls, might as well carry on to Ottawa on the existing line.

Another one of the benefits of the HFR approach. Start with the rail beds that exist as much as possible, create a connection between the two lines 2km north of Smith Falls for now, but maybe have a more direct line from Glen Tay to near the 416 near McKenna Casey Dr in the future. Personally I would like to see all the Toronto - Montreal traffic stop in Ottawa... because it means the traffic that pays for the line and political will to improve the line is greater than if you have multiple lines, and the amount of track you pay to maintain in total is less.

I would start with the route from Toronto to Ottawa via Peterborough, start service with that, and then divide the route into operating segments that would be upgraded over time based on benefit:

1. Union to Rail Corridor at Lake Ridge Rd in Whitby - Solve the long term route out of Toronto (Don Valley, Stouffville with a new connection north of Major Mackenzie heading west, other options?)
2. Rail Corridor at Lake Ridge Rd in Whitby to Rail Corridor and Peterborough County Rd 10
3. Rail Corridor and Peterborough County Rd 10 to Rail Corridor and Jermyn Line in Indian River - Solve the route through Peterborough (grade separations, station downtown vs outskirts, etc)
4. Rail Corridor and Jermyn Line in Indian River to Rail Corridor and Tiffen Rd in Marmora - Solve by-passing Norwood and Havelock
5. Rail Corridor and Tiffen Rd in Marmora to Rail Corridor and Sulphide Rd in Tweed north of Bogart - Solve the big dip and Tweed by-pass
6. Rail Corridor and Sulphide Rd in Tweed to Rail Corridor and Clark Rd in Central Frontenac east of Cardinal Heights Drive - Solve the curves around Arden and the Kaladar by-pass.
7. Rail Corridor and Clark Rd in Central Frontenac to Rail Corridor and Hydro Corridor east of Fall River Road in Sharbot Lake - Solve the Sharbot Lake by-pass
8. Rail Corridor and Hydro Corridor east of Fall River Road in Sharbot Lake to Rail Corridor and Brooke Valley Rd in Perth - Solve for the many curves getting in/out of the Canadian Shield.
9. Rail Corridor and Brooke Valley Rd in Perth to Rail Corridor and Highway 416 - Solve the Perth and Smith Falls by-pass.

You upgrade each segment based on prioritization of benefit, it can take as long as it needs to in order to get the funding required to finish it, with each segment completed there is immediate overall benefit, and at the end you have a modern HSR. It is the same approach that has led to the 400 almost being fully built to North Bay... you have a route and you slowly improve segments over time.

 

[crs1026]

Just about every HSR line zig-zags to hit major cities along the route. The line from Rome to Milan doesn't by-pass Bologna. The line from Brussels to Frankfurt doesn't by-pass Cologne. You get the point.

In the end it boils down to whether the end trip time Toronto- Ottawa- Montreal will be acceptable to the riding public or not. We may have different opinions on that, and I won’t re-cycle through all that. But one can’t overcome the reality that a three-sided T-O-M network will be much more expensive proposition to build, regardless of what route one prefers, than a single line connecting all three points.

The HFR strategy is, build the simplest line, at the most affordable price, to break the logjam of public and bureaucratic apathy for investment in a better rail passenger network. I do think that strategy will work. It may not be optimal, but it’s not a “blank sheet” design exercise....it’s the most direct route to getting things moving.

- Paul

 

[DSC]

In the end it boils down to whether the end trip time Toronto- Ottawa- Montreal will be acceptable to the riding public or not.

- Paul

Exactly! If the trip between Toronto to Montreal takes too long because it goes via Ottawa most travelers will take alternatives. One can argue what 'too long' is but some of us remember the (supposed) 4 hour Montreal-Toronto schedules and I for one would expect a "new train' to be faster than that!

 

[DirectionNorth]

Exactly! If the trip between Toronto to Montreal takes too long because it goes via Ottawa most travelers will take alternatives. One can argue what 'too long' is but some of us remember the (supposed) 4 hour Montreal-Toronto schedules and I for one would expect a "new train' to be faster than that!

Measuring it on a map, the shortest possible distance T-M is less than 40 km shorter than the HFR route through Ottawa. Using the Winchester Sub from Smith Falls to St. Polycarpe is a savings of 30 km.