VIA Rail

[lenaitch]

Perhaps it's me folks, but I'm having a hard time getting my head around the concept of HFR on the old O&Q (Peterborough/Havelock) ROW. Assuming there is ROW capacity, to me it makes more sense to add trackage to the CN lakeshore ROW rather than spending money on a route that is a distance from the population centres along the lake and through an area of very limited potential revenue traffic. I sometimes wonder if some people (not here) think it will be as simple as clearing away the underbrush and laying down new rails. Some of ROW alignment and close proximity to residential areas will likely require lower speeds that I'm not sure could be made up in other areas to result in a decent average speed. Will initial enthusiasm from 'northern route' municipalities fade away when they learn that they won't be a station stop and the trains will simply be seen as a disruptive annoyance to taxpaying residents?
On article I read suggested expanding the CP Belleville/Winchester sub route because it is underused. Even if that is true (which I'm not convinced it is), I'm not sure that improves things.
Once in Toronto, what route will it take and how much will that cost? If it stays on CP, there is a yard in the way. If it wants to head to Union, what about the viaduct and exposure to flooding on the Don Branch? In another study regarding GO to Peterborough, one of the options was a new ROW connecting to the Stouffville line. How do you interweave 15-minute service with stops and hourly service without (assuming an inter-city service would not do commuter stops). As mentioned previously, perhaps there are high-tech train control systems to make it work, if they can be proven and approved in Canada.
Regardless of which route, between high-frequency inter-city service and high-frequency commuter service, at what point does Union reach its 'slot limit'.

Maybe it's just me and my non-visionary brain thinking out loud. I'm not as engaged in the issues as many here.

 

[crs1026]

[

Maybe it's just me and my non-visionary brain thinking out loud. I'm not as engaged in the issues as many here.

No, it's the same questions and wavelengths that others have voiced also. With all the key technical information not yet in the public domain, it's hard to develop firm confidence in the proposal, but over time it's become apparent that it's the only plan on the table.... and if it doesn't happen, there is unlikely to be a Plan B! So I have come to see it as a real thing, for better or for worse.

VIA has clearly done its diligence, so there are apparently some engineering experts who are willing to stand behind the basic cost projections for the Havelock route. The question is what quality of line the stated budget will deliver.

I did some of my own back-of-envelope amateur quality calculations, and found that I could simulate an hourly service Toronto-Ottawa, (assuming single track at only 95 mph top speed and imposing conservative speed restrictions on the tighter curves that I could find on Google Maps), that could do the run in 3:25 and keep some (but not all) of the service on time. If one assumes that VIA may be able to build to 110 mph in some places, and ease some of the curves, one lands in the zone where the proposal feels quite possibly doable, though not a slam dunk. There were lots of assumptions in that, the biggest being CP's cooperation - there are reasons to believe that's possible, despite reasons to believe otherwise.

I agree that the failure to think west of Toronto is a major flaw, and I fault both Ottawa and Kathleen Wynne for stifling VIA while putting forward other fantasy ideas without any intention or means to achieve them. With Ford in the picture, there's little hope of either ML cooperating or Ottawa and Queens Park collaborating... so this will remain a sadly missed opportunity. But HFR may just happen, depending on how the next election lands.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

With Ford in the picture, there's little hope of either ML cooperating or Ottawa and Queens Park collaborating... so this will remain a sadly missed opportunity.

I wouldn't worry too much. He's posturing pre-election. He'll be back to cooperating after the election.

IfF HFRlaunches successfully, there will be plenty of pressure from Southwestern Ontario for a similar service. I just want HFR to get off the ground. It's very existence will change the conversation. We still have two years till the report comes out.

 

[MarkBrooks]

Why is Pickering being discussed when there is a thread specifically for it?

The thing that ticks me off about the VIA plan for higher-frequency and more exclusive line service is that it puts a higher priority on the Montreal to Quebec segment than it does on Union to London which has far higher ridership and much more so on a passenger per km travelled basis. That seems like Politics 101 and is made worse by the fact that the highways and congestion between London and Toronto are far busier than the ones between Quebec and Montreal making the issue of reliable transportation far more crucial in SWO than Central Quebec.

Because trying to estimate the passenger service market size in the corridor being considered needs to take into account all modes of transportation and thier limits.
Understanding the size and seeking Harmonies between the different modes of passenger travel , rail, air, and road is key to the success of VIAs HFR project. Understanding the limits of air capacity both in Toronto and around the world, points to a dramatic shift toward passenger rail.

 

[Urban Sky]

Nothing to do with that. It's everything to do with politics.

Agreed, but in the sense of the former liberal government of the province of Quebec demanding that Montreal-Quebec must be part of stage 1, whereas the former liberal government of the province of Ontario made abundantly clear that they don’t desire any federal inputs into the discussions of how to upgrade the VIA network west of Toronto...

Option C adds about 5 km and 10 minutes to the travel time to Union, over Option A (the original alignment). (Option B is just an alternative routing around Agincourt yard).

The costing is fascinating. Using the current corridor to Union, and grade-separating the CP, the capital cost is $1.5 billion - and this is a 2010 report.

I keep saying that there's no way that VIA is going to get in and out of Toronto for less than $1 billion. This implies it's closer to $2 billion. I don't understand how they claim to do the entire project to Quebec City for $4 billion. It makes no sense to me.

Unless I’m missing something in that report, Exhibits 8-3, 8-7 and 8-9 show capital costs for Route C to Union Station of $329 million for the Havelock Sub portion and $149 million for all the way to Union Station for a total capital cost of $478 million, which translates to $561 million if inflated from 2010 to 2019 prices. That amount divided by 124 km (the distance between Peterborough and Toronto Union, as shown in the 1989 VIA timetable yields a per-km cost of $4.5 million and if you recall from my previous post, the $2.1 billion budget would suffice at a per-km cost of $4.5 million for the construction of 1.37 track-km per route-km between Toronto Union and Smiths Falls.

 

[nfitz]

Unless I’m missing something in that report, Exhibits 8-3, 8-7 and 8-9 show capital costs for Route C to Union Station of $329 million for the Havelock Sub portion and $149 million for all the way to Union Station for a total capital cost of $478 million ...

The $149 million in Exhibit 8-7 and $329 million in Exhibit 8-3 is for Option C - Zero Impact for Union Station, using the Stouffville line. That's not what VIA has been talking about (or showing on their maps) ... is it even an option for VIA ... it's all fine for a couple of commuter trains per hour, that would basically run as a branch of the existing Stouffville line (as it serves all the stations from Markham and south) - but that won't give VIA the capacity they need.

VIA is using Option A (or I suppose B) costs at Union Station (presumably for Zero Impact). The $329 million becomes $384 million (for both A and B), and the $149 million becomes $944 million.

Also, I'm not sure why you didn't use the $626 million capital cost for Option C from Exhibit 11-10 rather than the $478 million from Exhibits 8-3 and 8-7, which only focus on some locations.

The Option A Zero Impact capital cost is $1.507 billion in Exhibit 11-2 - and that doesn't include financing! Though I suppose the $1.525 billion in Exhibit 11-6 for Option B may also be applicable, depending which way you get through Agincourt.

 

[Urban Sky]

The $149 million in Exhibit 8-7 and $329 million in Exhibit 8-3 is for Option C - Zero Impact for Union Station, using the Stouffville line. That's not what VIA has been talking about (or showing on their maps) ... is it even an option for VIA ... it's all fine for a couple of commuter trains per hour, that would basically run as a branch of the existing Stouffville line (as it serves all the stations from Markham and south) - but that won't give VIA the capacity they need.

Indeed, there is little which would suggest at this point that VIA is pursuing that route into Toronto, but I don’t see what would preclude the operation of at least one HFR train per hour on the Uxbridge Subdivision in addition to the 3-7 trains Metrolinx plans to operate per peak hour and in peak direction on the Uxbridge Sub, especially since CBTC is to be installed anyways around the USRC (recall that JR Central operates 4 local and 2 Express trains per hour and direction without anything like CBTC over the mostly single-tracked (!) Kyoto-Nara line). Granted, you’d probably need at least one passing section somewhere along the 10 mile long segment between Scarborough Jct. and Unionsville (Express tracks are available southwest of Scarborough Jct., while Metrolinx doesn’t seem to plan on operating its trains more often than every 20 minutes northeast of Unionville), but this can be achieved by simply squeezing a third track between the two main tracks between any two adjacent stations (as long as the Express track starts before Station A and reaching until after Station B)...

VIA is using Option A (or I suppose B) costs at Union Station (presumably for Zero Impact). The $329 million becomes $384 million (for both A and B), and the $149 million becomes $944 million.

Also, I'm not sure why you didn't use the $626 million capital cost for Option C from Exhibit 11-10 rather than the $478 million from Exhibits 8-3 and 8-7, which only focus on some locations.

The reason I used the Exhibits from Chapter 8 rather than from Chapter 11 is that I’m on vacations with only my phone, on which I only scrolled down until what I suspected to be the most relevant tables, which is why I wrote “Unless I’m missing something in that report”, to acknowledge that there might be information in the report which I should have rather used instead of simply telling you that you are definitely wrong. In any case one needs to exclude the rolling stock acquisition costs (which are included in the current fleet renewal program and a separate item within the overall HFR price tag), intrapolate the station costs from 8 to 2 stations (i.e. from $25 million to $7 million) and inflate the result ($626M-$84M-($25M-$7M)=$524M from 2010 to 2018 prices (I finally found the time to read the study which the CIB report obtained by the Globe&Mail report seems to refer to and it was tabled to VIA by an external engineering company towards the end of 2018) to obtain a figure of $602.5M.

The Option A Zero Impact capital cost is $1.507 billion in Exhibit 11-2 - and that doesn't include financing! Though I suppose the $1.525 billion in Exhibit 11-6 for Option B may also be applicable, depending which way you get through Agincourt.

You are trying to second-guess the details and likely cost of the current HFR design, while I am simply responding to your claim that “there's no way that VIA is going to get in and out of Toronto for less than $1 billion“ and I believe that the same report you use for making your claim suggests that there might very well be a way for doing exactly that for much less than that amount...

 

[nfitz]

Indeed, there is little which would suggest at this point that VIA is pursuing that route into Toronto, but I don’t see what would preclude the operation of at least one HFR train per hour on the Uxbridge Subdivision in addition to the 3-7 trains Metrolinx plans to operate".

There's supposed to be 4 GO trains that stop at all stations counter-peak and off-peak as well. And that doesn't include the SmartTrack trains, if that ever happens. I don't see how VIA gets past that - without significant delays, with only 2 tracks and 9 stations (10 if they add one at Ellesmere). And that doesn't include the 2 (proposed increase to 4) stations on the Kingston Sub, which is shared with the Lakeshore East service, that ALREADY has 4 off-peak trains an hour!

In any case one needs to exclude the rolling stock acquisition costs

Each option only includes $84 million (four 6-car trainsets) for rolling stock. So the $1.507 billion would be $1.423 billion ... in very old $. They'd be some savings in the $35 million for stations - but I'd think you'd be adding even more money to deal with other issues related to running VIA rather than GO services.

You are trying to second-guess the details and likely cost of the current HFR design, while I am simply responding to your claim that “there's no way that VIA is going to get in and out of Toronto for less than $1 billion“ and I believe that the same report you use for making your claim suggests that there might very well be a way for doing exactly that for much less than that amount...

The lowest number in that report for Stouffville line option is $626 million ($542-million with rollign stock - and a decade out of date. But you are going to need a third track if VIA runs that way - and who knows what on the Kingston sub from the Don to Scarborough. Metrolinx cost is much cheaper, as essentially they'd only be extending some of the trains, that are planned to stop in Unionville - negating any costs south of the 407.

The $542 million doesn't represent the cost of getting in and out of Toronto - it's represents the cost from the 407 to Peterborough. Getting from Agincourt to Union is the $billion - perhaps more, once you add 10 years of inflation - which turns $1 billion into $1.5 billion, using the 4% rule of thumb for construction price index.

There's no way that VIA's costing is realistic - unless there's some false assumption that CP is simply going to let then run along CP track with no separations. And I just don't see how that is feasible, given how frequently CP freights pass, just based on when I'm standing there west of Agincourt.

 

[crs1026]

^A rather significant caveat to that GO study is found in section 8.2

When asked to provide initial direction, the railway asked the Study Team to seek options that would have “Zero Impact” on the terminal. During subsequent discussions, the CP staff indicated that for a limited number of trains per day, the railway may entertain the idea of joint occupation of freight and passenger trains on a limited portion of CP’s existing tracks if it could be demonstrated that the joint occupancy would not unduly impact freight operations. They also indicated that the joint occupancy must be kept to the minimum length required to clear a physical restriction (e.g., buildings adjacent to the right- of-way that preclude building a bypass track at grade).

and section 3.3

This line is predominantly single tracked until it arrives at the Toronto Yard at mile 197.0 From there westward it is a two track corridor up to its connection to the North Toronto Subdivision at Leaside Station at Mile 206.3. CP staff have stated that to protect their freight operations they cannot allow any additional traffic on their existing lines, the railway may be open to allowing additional tracks to be added within the corridor to accommodate proposed passenger rail services. A depiction of the line is shown in Exhibit 3-3.

For VIA, with hourly trains at least in each direction, CP's conditions for a "Minimal Impact" solution would not be met, unlike a GO service that runs only a few trains per day. That pushes the estimates to the "Zero Impact" collumns, which are close to $1B in 2010 dollars.

The scenarios with a connection to the Uxbridge Sub might have been doable in 2010, which was before either RER or Smarttrack entered the picture. I cannot see this solution remaining on the table in light of one or both. Even if it remains possible, putting HFR on this route would be the kiss of death in terms of operability and likely not time competitive with the growth in GO since 2010. . The investment to add a third track now that a second track is added would be quite different than what they looked at in 2010. And I'm not confident that ML would accept a further increase in VIA operations west of Scarborough Jct without asking for a contribution to the fourth track which may come eventually from there to Union.

So, I'm definitely in the camp that wonders how much VIA will have to spend to get into Toronto, by any route.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

The scenarios with a connection to the Uxbridge Sub might have been doable in 2010, which was before either RER or Smarttrack entered the picture. I cannot see this solution remaining on the table in light of one or both.

I think they remain on the table for a GO Transit service to Peterborough. The RER plan is to stop many of the trains in Unionville or Mount Joy. The connection from the Stouffville line to the Peterborough line, would be north of Mount Joy, leaving out only the Stouffville and Lincolnville stations. GO service would be identical south of the Stouffvile, by extending say, a train every 30 minutes to Peterboough.

That's why that solution can work well for GO. But not for VIA. Unless VIA wants to run a milk run.

So, I'm definitely in the camp that wonders how much VIA will have to spend to get into Toronto, by any route.

I'm even deeper in that camp, now that I see numbers that are even more pessimistic than my gut feel - that would make it more expensive than VIA is claiming.

 

[ssiguy2]

I wouldn't worry too much. He's posturing pre-election. He'll be back to cooperating after the election.

IfF HFRlaunches successfully, there will be plenty of pressure from Southwestern Ontario for a similar service. I just want HFR to get off the ground. It's very existence will change the conversation. We still have two years till the report comes out.

Very true as SWO is getting sick of being ignored by Ottawa despite it's population. It's odd that the Liberals wouldn't put more pressure on VIA for a London and eventually Windsor extension before Quebec City. Quebec City is decidedly Conservative and where there are races it is usually with the Tories and Bloc not the Liberals. Politically they have little to gain from Quebec but SWO is a very different matter. London has always been a Liberal bastion but even it now has an NDP riding. With the NDP tanking the Liberals have a very good shot at getting 7 seats from the NDP in Hamilton/London/Windsor and Brantford and Sarnia would also be within reach. If it's the northern route they could secure Kitchener-Conestoga and Cambridge which are leaning Conservative.

 

[Urban Sky]

Very true as SWO is getting sick of being ignored by Ottawa despite it's population. It's odd that the Liberals wouldn't put more pressure on VIA for a London before Quebec and eventually Windsor extension before Quebec City. Quebec City is decidedly Conservative and where there are races it is usually with the Tories and Bloc not the Liberals. Politically they have little to gain from Quebec but SWO is a very different matter. London has always been a Liberal bastion but even it now has an NDP riding. With the NDP tanking the Liberals have a very good shot at getting 7 seats from the NDP in Hamilton/London/Windsor and Brantford and Sarnia would also be within reach. If it's the northern route they could secure Kitchener-Conestoga and Cambridge which are leaning Conservative.

Yes, hero, but how do you build a dedicated corridor which avoids interference with CN’s Toronto-Chicago services? Also, extending HFR to London before Quebec doesn’t help with it being already a rather Ontario-focused project with only 77 out of the 580 km between Montreal and Toronto falling onto Quebec territory, while Quebec-Toronto increases this share to 354 out of 857 km (i.e. from 13% to 41%, which is a close match of its share of both provinces’ population: 38%). As I’ve written before and the example of Montreal-Quebec demonstrates, all you need to add your own adjacent intraprovincial corridors into the HFR planning (funding is a completely different question) is a provincial government which shouts “What about us?” and so far the Ford government seems to be not interested enough...

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Yes, hero, but how do you build a dedicated corridor which avoids interference with CN’s Toronto-Chicago services?

You use the Ontario HSR plans. Build the missing link and use the North Main Line essentially. At HFR speeds it probably doesn't even need the big sections of new corridor between Kitchener and London (although assuming this has to go to Windsor to get Federal interest London to Chatham might need it).

 

[nfitz]

You use the Ontario HSR plans. Build the missing link and use the North Main Line essentially. As HFR speeds it probably doesn't even need the big sections of new corridor between Kitchener and London (although assuming this has to go to Windsor to get Federal interest London to Chatham might need it).

Once you get to London in 195 km, you've hit the bigger population centres, with a half-million each in KW and London, compared to the 100,000 in Chatham, and 350,000 in Windsor.

Though VIA already has their line from Chatham to Windsor, and I wouldn't think the CN segment from Chatham to London is particularly heavily used - a few km of extra track in London wouldn't be particularly expensive.

 

[Urban Sky]

You use the Ontario HSR plans. Build the missing link and use the North Main Line essentially. As HFR speeds it probably doesn't even need the big sections of new corridor between Kitchener and London (although assuming this has to go to Windsor to get Federal interest London to Chatham might need it).

Agreed, once someone has spent $8 billion over a construction period of 8 years (which is roughly twice as much as the construction cost and period of the entire Toronto-Quebec HFR project) for the "missing link" (which I support, don't get me wrong), building HFR becomes surprisingly affordable and easy to implement west of Toronto...