VIA Rail

[Allandale25]

^ Good points. Fascinating to speculate on the CP-VIA discussions that would have had to take place before VIA went public several years ago with the HFR concepts and how detailed CP would have been with what they wanted. I assume that's partly why there's a cost range in the HFR cost estimate that's been put out and the study will provide more public details.

 

[lenaitch]

I feel like the brickworks bridge and Don Branch could be avoided if either a spur line was created from the CP Havlock Line to the Stouffville Line

I believe I saw a similar proposal in either the HFR paper or a paper on a Peterborough GO service.

Looking at specific markets really shows you why stops need to be controlled.

Toronto-Ottawa: 130km from Toronto to Peterborough. 1.3 hrs at 100 kph. 290 km from Peterborough to Tremblay. 1.45 hrs at 200 kph. Assuming 5 stops (Eglinton, GTA East, Peterborough, Fallowfield) at 6 minutes each, yields 0.5 hrs. So 3.25 hrs total. This going to savage Toronto-Ottawa flying. Particularly when you account for the travel time from the airport to your destination. Having two train stops in Ottawa, both with decent transit connections, provides a huge advantage.

I would think to maintain an average speed of 200kph between Peterborough and Ottawa would require either a massive realignment or much higher speed peak sections to make up for those sections where lower speeds would be required for curves. The current ROW goes directly through the centre of almost every village it encounters (as well as Peterborough). Speeds like that preclude level crossings and there are many rural and private roads that would have to be either separated or completely relocated.

 

[nfitz]

I would think to maintain an average speed of 200kph between Peterborough and Ottawa ...

No one is talking about an average speed of 200 km/hr! They can't exceed 177 km/hr without spending a huge fortune on grade crossings. And of course, they can't even hit 177 km/hr in a lot of places because of the curves.

The plan is about 581 km to Montreal in 4.75 hours. That's an average speed of 122 km/hr. That compares to the 135 km.hr average speed that VIA used to get on the current Montreal to Toronto route.

 

[lenaitch]

No one is talking about an average speed of 200 km/hr! They can't exceed 177 km/hr without spending a huge fortune on grade crossings. And of course, they can't even hit 177 km/hr in a lot of places because of the curves.

The plan is about 581 km to Montreal in 4.75 hours. That's an average speed of 122 km/hr. That compares to the 135 km.hr average speed that VIA used to get on the current Montreal to Toronto route.

Don't panic - I was merely responding to a post. Even an average of 122 might be a challenge given parts of the alignment and proximity to built-up areas.

 

[lrt's friend]

The goal for Montreal-Toronto should be 3hr 59min with HFR. Now, how to achieve that? I have commented before about using the Winchester sub for express trains, which will bypass Ottawa. Since that would be almost 100% rural and straight, is it feasible and cost effective?

 

[cplchanb]

No one is talking about an average speed of 200 km/hr! They can't exceed 177 km/hr without spending a huge fortune on grade crossings. And of course, they can't even hit 177 km/hr in a lot of places because of the curves.

The plan is about 581 km to Montreal in 4.75 hours. That's an average speed of 122 km/hr. That compares to the 135 km.hr average speed that VIA used to get on the current Montreal to Toronto route.

wow....ive said it before and ill say it again....4.75 hr target is just god awful low, even for 1980s standards. Are they trying to win over people driving 80km/h on the 401?? They will get no business with such a slow speed. If they want to attract
people from driving and flying they need to crack into the 3 hr mark. No wonder they cant get market share on the corridor, low ambitions and low standards.

 

[crs1026]

The goal for Montreal-Toronto should be 3hr 59min with HFR. Now, how to achieve that? I have commented before about using the Winchester sub for express trains, which will bypass Ottawa. Since that would be almost 100% rural and straight, is it feasible and cost effective?

That leaves the same freight-pax conflict, unless new track is built. CP will not accept impacts on freight, although we must hope they would discuss VIA adding its own track as must happen through Perth and northeast Toronto.
I wonder, though, about the M&O sub. It is equally straight for much of its route, and it’s landbanked specifically for HSR. One can’t argue that relaying the Havelock is cheap but relaying the M&O is cost prohibitive.
I don’t know how much VIA has budgeted for the Alexandria Sub under HFR, but its curves need to be addressed to get speed up. What’s the head to head comparison against M&O? Another mystery I hope VIA will reveal when their plan gets to the EA.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

I wonder, though, about the M&O sub. It is equally straight for much of its route, and it’s landbanked specifically for HSR. One can’t argue that relaying the Havelock is cheap but relaying the M&O is cost prohibitive.

What's the benefit though? VIA owns the existing alignment from Coteau - which is almost as good of an alignment as the M&O. There can't be much potential savings on Ottawa to Montreal travel times, between the two subs.

 

[crs1026]

What's the benefit though? VIA owns the existing alignment from Coteau - which is almost as good of an alignment as the M&O. There can't be much potential savings on Ottawa to Montreal travel times, between the two subs.

I suspect it’s a case where the Alexandria needs only 20 miles’ improvement at $10M a mile, where the M&O needs 100 miles of relaying at $4M a mile. Alexandria wins in terms of absolute cost. The question is, what is the comparison of travel times. Cutting even ten minutes off the travel time might tip the scales to show a return on the incremental cost.
With due respect to VIA’s faith in frequency, I do think speed is especially important for demand on the Ottawa-Trudeau and Ottawa- Montreal segment, so a few minutes may matter a lot.

- Paul

 

[hw621]

wow....ive said it before and ill say it again....4.75 hr target is just god awful low, even for 1980s standards. Are they trying to win over people driving 80km/h on the 401?? They will get no business with such a slow speed. If they want to attract
people from driving and flying they need to crack into the 3 hr mark. No wonder they cant get market share on the corridor, low ambitions and low standards.

And driving is much cheaper...

 

[nfitz]

And driving is much cheaper...

With a family of four perhaps. Even solo, it's hard get it much under 5.5 hours, given the need to get gas and get food, even if there is no traffic. And at about 550 km, that's about $150 in average vehicle costs, one-way. And about 50 L of gas ... $75.

If you ignore all the vehicle costs except gas, at best it's slightly cheaper ... perhaps not even that if you book far enough in advance ... I can see $49 being offered right now ... and lots of trips at $69 ... during high season!

 

[robmausser]

I believe I saw a similar proposal in either the HFR paper or a paper on a Peterborough GO service.

I think it was the Peterborough GO thingy

REW Backend

Route C would avoid Toronto Yard issues entirely by diverting trains via a new connecting track to the
Uxbridge Subdivision (GO Stouffville line) avoiding major capital works at the yard. As a result, the
capital costs associated with Route C are significantly lower than Routes A and B. One drawback
associated with Route C is that it bypasses two proposed stations on the western portion of the line at
Steeles Avenue and in Agincourt near Brimley Road. The new greenfield connection track, shown in
Exhibit 8-6, would depart the Havelock Subdivision just west of the 28th Sideline south of the 8th
Concession (Mile 170). From there, it would travel westward in a new right-of-way north of Markham for
4.91 miles to connect with connect to GO’s Uxbridge Subdivision at Mile 44.97, located just north of the
Major MacKenzie Drive crossing. The land along the proposed connection track is currently in
agricultural use.
Once on the Uxbridge Subdivision, under the Union Station option trains would parallel the GO
Stouffville line service using existing tracks south to the connection with CN’s Kingston Subdivision
(GO’s Lakeshore East line) at the Scarborough GO Station. From that point, trains would travel west
along the Kingston Subdivision using existing tracks to the Union Station Rail Corridor.

 

[kEiThZ]

wow....ive said it before and ill say it again....4.75 hr target is just god awful low, even for 1980s standards. Are they trying to win over people driving 80km/h on the 401?? They will get no business with such a slow speed. If they want to attract
people from driving and flying they need to crack into the 3 hr mark. No wonder they cant get market share on the corridor, low ambitions and low standards.

3 hrs would be HSR. If you know where the $12-15 billion this would cost (for just Toronto-0ttawa-Monteal) will come from, please let VIA management know.

The reason they are pursuing HFR is because we’ve now had decades of discussion about HSR and every time they study it and the price tag comes in government’s balk. They are trying to find a project that boosts service, at a price palatable to their federal masters, and for something that will allow a decent enough rate of return to entice institutional capital.

As for Toronto-Montreal.

It’s not the 80s anymore. Traffic in the GTA and in Montreal sucks. It might take 2 hrs to get from Union to Bowmanville mid-afternoon. Short of driving exclusively after dark, there’s no way of getting from downtown to downtown in 5 hrs with realistic traffic. As it stands, even with today’s 5+ hr trips, plenty of people take the train and bus and drive. Get it to 4.75 hrs, make it frequent and price it reasonably and there will be plenty of takers. A 4.75 hr trip will gain marketshare from bus and driving if priced right.

A concept that people need to understand in this debate is marginality. VIA cannot pursue every marginal passenger. They don’t have the budget to do that. Another idea that Torontonians need to through is there’s more to the Corridor than just Toronto-Montreal. On Toronto-Ottawa they can be marginally competitive with flying and steal some marketshare from the airlines They’ll slaughter the buses and driving here. On Montreal-Quebec City and Ottawa-Montreal, they’ll be faster than both driving and flying downtown to downtown. On these segments, they are actually in a position to create a market if they are fast enough to improve inter-city commuting. On Toronto-Montreal, the best that can be done is competing with bus and car. And that’s just fine. They don’t need to win in every segment.

 

[kEiThZ]

I suspect it’s a case where the Alexandria needs only 20 miles’ improvement at $10M a mile, where the M&O needs 100 miles of relaying at $4M a mile. Alexandria wins in terms of absolute cost. The question is, what is the comparison of travel times. Cutting even ten minutes off the travel time might tip the scales to show a return on the incremental cost.
With due respect to VIA’s faith in frequency, I do think speed is especially important for demand on the Ottawa-Trudeau and Ottawa- Montreal segment, so a few minutes may matter a lot.

- Paul

Yep. People are fixated on the Toronto-Montreal trip and don’t get what speed in the Ottawa-Montreal and Montreal-Quebec City segments mean. Make Ottawa-Dorval about an hour and make it an hourly frequency, and tons of people would skip flying from YOW for a lot of trips. Make Ottawa-Montreal 1.5 hrs and while still grueling considering station access, I can see the cities becoming solid exurbs of each other and Alexandria becoming a white collar exurb for both cities overnight. Ditto Tori’s-Rivière if Montreal-Quebec City is made ~2 hrs.

These are areas where VIA can actually grow the market, rather than just stealing share from air and car. Though it will do plenty of that too.

 

[kEiThZ]

With a family of four perhaps. Even solo, it's hard get it much under 5.5 hours, given the need to get gas and get food, even if there is no traffic. And at about 550 km, that's about $150 in average vehicle costs, one-way. And about 50 L of gas ... $75.

If you ignore all the vehicle costs except gas, at best it's slightly cheaper ... perhaps not even that if you book far enough in advance ... I can see $49 being offered right now ... and lots of trips at $69 ... during high season!

Driving is cheaper for a family. For a couple, the case is pretty marginal.

550 km trip. About $50 in gas for a rather average sedan at 7L/100km. And say about $15 in consumables (fluids, tires). Round trip, that’s $130. Of course, that’s not accounting for depreciation and parking on the other end. I’d say there’s no case for a single person to drive. Aside from the fatigue issue. Somewhat marginal if there’s two in the car. And more sensible for families to drive. This is incidentally, exactly what you see in Europe. You still see families going on road trips while singles and couples tend to take the train.

The main challenge for VIA here is pricing consistency. If there’s any variability at all in planning the trip, VIA becomes challenging to use because the price varies widely by time slot. More trains should help shrink the pricing band while improving fare predictability. Maybe even get it to the point that there’s an economic case for just grabbing a ticket at the station before boarding.