Alto - High Speed Rail (Toronto-Quebec City)

[urbanclient]

It may be wishful thinking that the high speed service is maintained for the entire route except for stations. Does not mean it cannot be done. Once they release the plans, we can see what they are doing. It is just like how we all can agree that the route will not follow the exact and entirety of the Havelock Sub.

I'll clarify, it's not physically impossible. But consider that among the faster Chinese HSRs that top out at 350, not Alto's 300, only about 8-9 lines can hit those average speeds. And that's on mostly elevated viaducts that can better neutralize human and geographic constraints. Alto will not be mostly on elevated viaducts. For 8 to 9 lines averaging >=250km/h, that's among ~50 total lines, including many that top out at 250 to 300. Afaik not a single Chinese HSR that tops out 300 can hit 250km/h terminus to terminus, except for express and non-stops. 500km is not the route length for TO-OTT-MTL.

Consider that a 300km/h top speed train takes ~40km and 15 minutes total for two acceleration-decelerations from Toronto to Ottawa to Montreal, that leaves you with 1:45 to cover 510-560 km. That would imply an average speed of 291 to 320 km/h. I am assuming the total distance travelled TO-OTT-MTL to be 550-600km. That's not factoring in a dwell time for Ottawa and slow sections near stations.

So for all intents and purposes, your dreams of 2 hours TO-MTL is wishful thinking. It's admirable to have lofty goals, but when you look at the practical considerations, it's just not feasible in Alto's case.

 

[kEiThZ]

But like you said, Alto will cost more than Via, and it already costs $25 to go from Union to Aldershot (~60 km), and $40 for Union to Brantford (~100 km) booking two weeks in advance. I highly doubt ~130 km from Toronto's Alto station, where ever it may be, will be cheaper than these two current Via prices. And if people have to book months in advance like an airline just to save $3-4 off ~$25, $40, than that's an even bigger turnoff (try booking these two itineraries on Via). A well received rail airport link would have more like GO's distance pricing scheme. Furthermore, I think the general consensus is that they want to avoid having lots of people get off at smaller intermediate stops, because that would lead to suboptimal load factors going to Ottawa and Montreal. I think this secondary GTA airport is as wishful thinking as 500 km in 2 hours while averaging 250 km/h à la @micheal_can. The economics for Alto, Via, and the train rider just don't make sense.

First off, anybody not using Pearson or Billy Bishop is going to be price-sensitive traveler not a time-sensitive traveler. With that in mind, as long as the air fare difference to wherever more than makes up for the train fare, there's a business case there. And guaranteedly an airport well out of the GTA on east side has a lot of cost operating advantages. Cheap land on which to build and grow. Not constrained by busy GTA airspace. And saves about 100 km each way on every flight going East. Could be a low cost paradise in a way that Hamilton never was. The air-rail integration if this happens is the cherry on the sundae. They can coordinate ticket sales. Have check in right at the rail terminal. Etc.

Like I said. This is a fantasy. Would much prefer Peterborough to use this chance to really grow as city. But if they absolutely insist on putting the station outside the city, I sure hope they make lemonade out of lemons.

 

[urbanclient]

Like I said. This is a fantasy. Would much prefer Peterborough to use this chance to really grow as city. But if they absolutely insist on putting the station outside the city, I sure hope they make lemonade out of lemons.

Alright, you make some fair points. It could make financial sense for a price-sensitive traveller assuming it's cheaper to get to and fly from Peterborough. What about the load factor issue for the rail operator.

 

[kEiThZ]

Alright, you make some fair points. It could make financial sense for a price-sensitive traveller assuming it's cheaper to get to and fly from Peterborough. What about the load factor issue for the rail operator.

Peterborough is absolutely going to be an interesting issue. Ditto Trois Rivieres on the other side. Their demand will be commuter heavy. Clearly the number of pax leaving Peterborough for Toronto in the morning will be more than the number of pax going to Ottawa and Montreal from Peterborough. Not sure how this is managed. Either Alto commuter service for just Peterborough-Toronto. Or maybe GO uses the corridor to build a commuter service on top and then Peterborough-Toronto Alto fares are kept high.

 

[HuskyJet]

In support of this - here’s Pearson at this moment…easily 2,000 business travellers enduring the waiting and added taxi time while planes are de-iced. This is in the portion of the takeoff governed by the “please ensure that all electronic devices are stowed snd your seatback remains in the upright position”.

Forgive my ignorance but what are some cold weather limitations on HSR we could expect with Alto? I’m intimately familiar with cold weather restrictions in aviation operations so I’m expecting there are very real considerations that could add to travel time…. Could these trains reliably run at 300 km/h in extreme cold? Or even snowfall for the matter?

My mind is going to the Shinkansen needing to mitigate ice accretion in the bogeys by spraying water and the 250 km/h limit on HSR lines in northeast China to Harbin.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I think you're right. From where I grew up in Durham Region, it's about the same time to drive to Peterborough or Union Station, leaning towards the former during rush hour.

Yes DC Oshawa Station to union station or Peterborough are both roughly 1 hr by car. However the point of having a shoulder station is to make the outer extremities of the region easily accessible. Having Peterborough as the easter GTA station, you are asking people to add an hour to their trip on top of what ever time it takes to get from the eastern end of Durham to anywhere in the eastern GTA. It would be a NON STARTER for most potential passengers since it would nuke any time savings the train offers.

We need to keep in mind that the GTA is 100+ Km wide. Even if the stations were placed at the mid point between Union and Toronto's easter and western ends you'd still be looking at a stop spacing of about 30 Km, in an area that's already going to have slower running speeds due to traffic, track geometry, etc

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Just out of interest, what kind of travel time would you find appropriate for two cities 504 km apart (Euclidean distance, measured between the respective VIA stations and partly running through Lake Ontario and the US) and what European or Asian examples come into your mind where a comparable distance is covered in, say, less than 3 hours?

Milano Centrale to Roma Termini is 479 km by rail (according to chat gpt. 570 km by car according to google maps) and Trenitalia is able to run non stop service between the two in about 3 hrs

 

[kEiThZ]

Yes DC Oshawa Station to union station or Peterborough are both roughly 1 hr by car. However the point of having a shoulder station is to make the outer extremities of the region easily accessible. Having Peterborough as the easter GTA station, you are asking people to add an hour to their trip on top of what ever time it takes to get from the eastern end of Durham to anywhere in the eastern GTA. It would be a NON STARTER for most potential passengers since it would nuke any time savings the train offers.

We need to keep in mind that the GTA is 100+ Km wide. Even if the stations were placed at the mid point between Union and Toronto's easter and western ends you'd still be looking at a stop spacing of about 30 Km, in an area that's already going to have slower running speeds due to traffic, track geometry, etc

Will go back to what I said earlier. The list of CITIES that Alto provided is not the list of stations. People are making too many assumptions.

Milano Centrale to Roma Termini is 479 km by rail (according to chat gpt. 570 km by car according to google maps) and Trenitalia is able to run non stop service between the two in about 3 hrs

Which makes the proposed 3:07 hrs on a > 600 km rail route from Toronto to Montreal all the more impressive.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

The more convenient Pickering Airport is dead. I can't see Peterborough being the second GTA airport when it's farther for vast majority of GTA residents than Hamilton's airport, which is barely used to begin with. More people live west of Toronto than east.

Minister of Transport announces the Pickering Lands will not be used for a future airport site

Today, the Minister of Transport and Internal Trade, the Honourable Anita Anand, announced that the Pickering Lands will not be used for a future airport site. The Government of Canada intends to transfer the high conservation value lands to Parks Canada.

www.canada.ca

LMAO. We are arguing about a second station in Toronto but suddenly we want to add a second station in Peterborough (all 130k population Peterborough?). An airport station and, presumably, a downtown station?

 

[urbanclient]

It seems the recent sentiment is that it's ok for Alto to be priced for the upper-middle class or even higher. "Even in Europe, most HSR is business travel, supercommuters and the wealthier tourists."

My point is that if Via is hardly even price competitive with plane tickets today, how can we expect a more expensive version to compete with flying for "wealthier" Canadians? Time sensitive supercommuters will have airline status and access to car or uber. With 5-6 trains vs. ~35 flights per day, the clear choice is flying currently. I just don't see Alto significantly eroding into airline market share in a European or Asian way. The <100km/h average speed Via is more expensive than many HSR routes in Europe, much less Asia. This erodes into its goal of being nation building and environmentally friendly. Alto needs to be both time and price competitive enough so the trains to flights ratio goes to 50/50 or better, like Madrid to Barcelona. Or the ROI is gonna be terrible. If the government needs to subsidize operations as is common elsewhere, so be it.

Pre-covid this was especially true when the Via 6 pak wasn't even price competitive with round trip flights booked months in advance. Not to mention the student 6 pak kinda sucked. If your parents could pick you up from the airport, it was a no brainer to fly. https://www.tripadvisor.ca/ShowTopi...k_on_via_rail_is_severely_limited-Canada.html

Seriously, try comparing itineraries on Via and Google Flights right now. Via usually displays prices before tax whereas Flights shows including tax. I just don't buy the notion that Via is mostly cheaper than flying. Maybe something has changed post-covid that I somehow can't see, but I've compared dozens of itineraries from now to March 2026.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

It seems the recent sentiment is that it's ok for Alto to be priced for the upper-middle class or even higher. "Even in Europe, most HSR is business travel, supercommuters and the wealthier tourists."

My point is that if Via is hardly even price competitive with plane tickets today, how can we expect a more expensive version to compete with flying for "wealthier" Canadians? Time sensitive supercommuters will have airline status and access to car or uber. With 5-6 trains vs. ~35 flights per day, the clear choice is flying currently. I just don't see Alto significantly eroding into airline market share in a European or Asian way. The <100km/h average speed Via is more expensive than many HSR routes in Europe, much less Asia. This erodes into its goal of being nation building and environmentally friendly. Alto needs to be both time and price competitive enough so the trains to flights ratio goes to 50/50 or better, like Madrid to Barcelona. Or the ROI is gonna be terrible.

Pre-covid this was especially true when the Via 6 pak wasn't even price competitive with round trip flights booked months in advance. Not to mention the student 6 pak kinda sucked. If your parents could pick you up from the airport, it was a no brainer to fly. https://www.tripadvisor.ca/ShowTopi...k_on_via_rail_is_severely_limited-Canada.html

Seriously, try comparing itineraries on Via and google flights right now. Via usually displays prices before tax whereas Flights shows including tax. I just don't buy the notion that Via is mostly cheaper than flying. Maybe something has changed post-covid that I somehow can't see, but I've compared dozens of itineraries from now to March 2026.

I mean the true elephant in the room is that the federal government encourages rail travel through subsidies and DIScourages air travel for short to medium distance travel. However the environment 'right now' is that the feds overwhelmingly support air travel over rail travel.

 

[urbanclient]

I mean the true elephant in the room is that the federal government encourages rail travel through subsidies and DIScourages air travel for short to medium distance travel. However the environment 'right now' is that the feds overwhelmingly support air travel over rail travel.

Forreal, if the—often-criticized-for-being-pricier-than-American—Canadian domestic airline industry can be price and time competitive with driving, Alto has to be at least better than flying on some front. My prediction right now is that it won't be unless it is subsidized. Sure there are some like @Urban Sky who prefer the train for the overall experience and ability to work, but for people going out to do a face-to-face or leisure, a combination of travel time and price is more important than strict comfort. Flying is already less tiring than driving IMO. Why would I pay more to get there slower? (unless I had work to do before arriving)

 

[kEiThZ]

My point is that if Via is hardly even price competitive with plane tickets today, how can we expect a more expensive version to compete with flying for "wealthier" Canadians?

When you understand how tickets are priced with yield management you'll get why HSR will be more competitive than VIA is today.

 

[micheal_can]

I'll clarify, it's not physically impossible. But consider that among the faster Chinese HSRs that top out at 350, not Alto's 300, only about 8-9 lines can hit those average speeds. And that's on mostly elevated viaducts that can better neutralize human and geographic constraints. Alto will not be mostly on elevated viaducts. For 8 to 9 lines averaging >=250km/h, that's among ~50 total lines, including many that top out at 250 to 300. Afaik not a single Chinese HSR that tops out 300 can hit 250km/h terminus to terminus, except for express and non-stops. 500km is not the route length for TO-OTT-MTL.

Consider that a 300km/h top speed train takes ~40km and 15 minutes total for two acceleration-decelerations from Toronto to Ottawa to Montreal, that leaves you with 1:45 to cover 510-560 km. That would imply an average speed of 291 to 320 km/h. I am assuming the total distance travelled TO-OTT-MTL to be 550-600km. That's not factoring in a dwell time for Ottawa and slow sections near stations.

So for all intents and purposes, your dreams of 2 hours TO-MTL is wishful thinking. It's admirable to have lofty goals, but when you look at the practical considerations, it's just not feasible in Alto's case.

I guess my wishful thinking is what ever time is on the time table is when they arrive. No more excuses for being even 5 minutes late. As far as speeds, they should not be crawling into Toronto and then crawl from the city boundary into Union. It is kind of like how Via trains can can do 90 mph, but they crawl at half that once they get into Toronto. Instead of making it make sense, mitigate the issues and have it fast until it needs to slow down for the upcoming station.So,whatever that overall average speed is,what I want is it to not have to slow down because we could not afford a flatter or straighter ROW. It should also never sit outside a station waiting its turn. That is not a thing that a high speed train should do when others can and should get out of its way.

 

[urbanclient]

When you understand how tickets are priced with yield management you'll get why HSR will be more competitive than VIA is today.

I don't need you to condescend to me multiple times over the concept of yield management. Like I said before, their pricing appears to work based off how close you are to the trip date more so than flights. Which you haven't acknowledged twice now except hand waving "yield management" like it's some magical term beyond our comprehension. Even off-season weekday tickets on half empty trains double in price when close to the trip date. I'm not saying realized demand or demand signals have no effect on price at all, just that they appear to have a weaker effect on fare escalation compared to airline tickets. Time-to-departure seems to have a bigger effect. Why do I think this? Personal experience, because like @Urban Sky I prefer the train to flying sometimes.

Unless you work for Via in the relevant department, I'm not sure even you know how exactly their yield management/revenue management works. And to say that this concept in itself will somehow make Alto more competitive to Via is a weakly supported claim even within the wider thread context. It's so vague, is Alto going to have a more sophisticated yield management system? Having YM improves revenue capture with current supply, it does not in itself make Alto more competitive nor does it increase capacity etc.... I'm pretty sure competitiveness with airlines and driving requires supply increases; so are they going to run higher capacity, more frequent trains? And will that supply increase result in prices that increase consumer surplus rather than just rail operator revenue? I am having my doubts. Subsidization seems inevitable. Look what happened with UP Express. Obviously, you're free to disagree.

Feel free to mix and match itineraries for Dec 2025 to Jan 2026 for Toronto-Montreal for Via and Google Flights. Note: the very act of searching for flights will increase their prices.

That's how their yield management system works.

Noone is saying that the yield management system doesn't exist or doesn't 'work'. Just that it appears to work in a more time-to-departure weighted, IMO suboptimal way: for both Via and the customer. It seems different from airlines, even though Via tries to copy airlines in other ways.

Will all depend on how much capacity they offer. The more they offer, the less sensitive to departure time their yield management system becomes. It would be nice eventually to have some kind of standard base fare where you can travel without planning at all. Just buy a ticket on the app or from a machine at the station and tap at the platform gate.

...you are describing this in an imprecise yet jargon-y way. With lower service frequency (not necessarily capacity), yield management places greater weight on departure time differentiation. Via frequencies are much lower than flights for TO-MTL right now.

Also technical jargon can make discussions less inclusive.