|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
steveintoronto
Superstar
Library of Parliament Research Publications
Current Publications: Business, industry and trade
VIA Rail Canada Inc. and the Future of Passenger Rail in Canada
Jean Dupuis, Economics, Resources and International Affairs Division
31 August 2015
Background Paper† No. 2015-55-EPDF 478 kB, 17 pages
[...]
6 Recent developments
Given that the federal government does not consider high-speed passenger rail a practical option or as a feasible solution to improve passenger rail service, VIA Rail has recently taken the initiative to explore another approach. VIA Rail is promoting the notion of high-frequency rail (HFR) rather than high-speed rail (HSR) through the acquisition and building of a rail network dedicated to passenger rail service only. A dedicated track for passenger rail service would resolve the rail traffic congestion issues associated with sharing the network with freight rail carriers.19
A passenger rail dedicated track would also allow VIA Rail more latitude to increase frequency of service; improve the availability and convenience of rail service to all Canadians and thus add ridership volume; generate more passenger revenue; reduce reliance on government subsidies; and improve the percentage of trains running on schedule.
VIA Rail's HFR strategy would require the acquisition of existing trackage from freight railways and the rehabilitation or rebuilding of existing rights-of-way found within the Toronto–Ottawa–Montréal segment of the Québec City–Windsor corridor. Unlike the HSR option, which would require the construction of an entirely new and dedicated high-speed rail network infrastructure and necessitate substantial investment in new and untried technology and equipment, the HFR option offers merely to expand and rehabilitate the existing rail network for passenger rail service using existing technology and operating at conventional speeds. The HFR strategy proposed by VIA Rail is considerably less costly than the proposed HSR schemes, with lower execution risk and quicker implementation to market.
According to VIA Rail, the HFR project would cost $3 billion in capital costs, two thirds of which would be for the acquisition and rehabilitation of trackage and signalling infrastructure. The Toronto–Ottawa–Montréal dedicated segment was selected for having the best potential to achieve profitability, and over the years VIA Rail would slowly expand passenger rail service to a greater number of communities across Canada. The dedicated rail network would include VIA Rail's intercity passenger rail services and regional and metropolitan commuter rail services such as MetroLinx (Greater Toronto region) and the Agence métropolitaine de transport (Greater Montréal region).
With a dedicated track, VIA Rail hopes that doubling the frequency of passenger rail service would increase ridership almost fourfold, thus increasing revenues and reducing reliance on federal government subsidies. To further reduce the burden on the Canadian taxpayer, VIA Rail is seeking to secure private financing to implement the project.20
VIA Rail intends to submit its HFR proposal to federal cabinet either by the end of 2015 or early 2016. If the proposal is approved, VIA Rail would implement the initiative in four to seven years.21
[...] (Notes 19, 20, and 21 for above, impossible to edit the index numbers below that this forum software applies)
- Josh Zeliger and Lee Greenberg, "Tories rule out funding for Windsor–Quebec rail link," Ottawa Citizen, 16 November 2011. [ Return to text ]
- Top 5 things to know about VIA Rail's plan for dedicated tracks," Excerpts from a speech at the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships, 4 June 2015. [ Return to text ]
- VIA Rail looks to private investment for $3-billion dedicated track plan," The Globe and Mail [Toronto], 4 July 2015. [ Return to text ]
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Whenever I watch this I wonder what went through the minds of the passengers in that front car when they looked out the window and saw the engineer bailing.
steveintoronto
Superstar
steveintoronto
Superstar
Besides the content of this post, which I don't need to comment on, follow the reference back to the discussion in the forum prior. (click on the arrow pointing up that prefaces the quoted post above) ( http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/goto/post?id=1106090#post-1106090 )
No time do further searching right now, but some of the other regular posters can repost some of their posts as well as Urban Sky's, who put in detailed chart form to show expected performance times. Others also produced some outstanding maps and charts.
The discussion flared up at various times, mostly around end of last year, which is when Urban Sky posted highly detailed charts produced from VIA's proprietary software.
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
Any guesses at intermediate stops on this the HFR proposal?
For example, will they have a stop in the eastern GTA, like Guildwood and Oshawa today?
For example, will they have a stop in the eastern GTA, like Guildwood and Oshawa today?
I would hope there would be one in northern Scarborough (north of Sheppard). There are a few locations that look pretty decent just from an aerial POV, but as to sites that have actually been studied/short-listed, I have no idea.
Another potential option is the 407-Donald Cousens area. That would make it pretty easily accessible for anyone in York Region, and could offer some pretty easy connections to GO buses.
MisterF
Senior Member
The Shining Waters plan had several stops between Peterborough and Toronto: Harper Road, Pontypool, Myrtle, Claremont, Locust Hill, Steeles, Uxbridge connection, Eglinton, Summerhill, and Dupont. No idea if Via will be incorporating all these, but if they do I wouldn't expect most of them to get more than one or two commuter-focused trains a day. One of them could be a hub similar to Guildwood that would get more frequent trains.
jcam
Active Member
Metrolinx's last study, in 2009, had the following, from Peterborough to Toronto:
- Peterborough - George St. (city centre)
- Peterborough - Harper Rd. (commuter parking)
- Pontypool
- Myrtle
- Claremont
- Locust Hill / 407 Transitway
- Steeles
- Agincourt
- Union
dowlingm
Senior Member
I'd rather see VIA continue to serve Kingston and head up in the direction of the Highway 15 corridor, avoiding most of the lake system. There is a hydro corridor running southwest from Smiths Falls which might be helpful.
kEiThZ
Superstar
That's far too many stops for VIA service. Especially if you're aiming for 50km apart. Agincourt, Steeles and Locust Hill are excusable because of catchment. Beyond that, at best one stop between Locust Hill and Peterborough. And only one stop in Peterborough. Anything more and it slows the line down way too much. Even if they aren't all servicing all the stops. GO should be adding service to all those stops, once the corridor is up and running.
crs1026
Superstar
I'd make a similar case that there should be some level of service for Perth and Smiths Falls, too. I'm much happier seeing Peterboro join the intercity network than a commuter service, with the same slow trip times as say Kitchener.
If you add these stops also, timing gets even messier.
VIA originally suggested a 2:30-2:40 trip time Ottawa-Toronto. Either that figure is unrealistic, or there just isn't time to make intermediate stops. Add stops into that tight a timing, and you have to assume higher running speeds. There's a limit to how fast Transport Canada will allow trains to cross those 154 level crossings at grade, even if the tracks are good for the speed. (I skimmed this entire thread, and didn't see any authoritative factual statement of how fast VIA actually intends here.)
With single track, and a service timed for high frequency, the meeting times have to be uniform. You can't have one train making a stop and falling off the meeting template by even five minutes. At 150 km/h, this level of variability translates into passing sidings of much greater length, or delays will cascade through the schedule as opposing trains reach meeting points less consistently.
- Paul
steveintoronto
Superstar
[The initial $4-billion project would be limited to the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto corridor. Mr. Desjardins-Siciliano listed the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, Public Sector Pension Investment Board and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board as interested investors.
Via’s plan falls short of full high-speed rail, but Mr. Desjardins-Siciliano insisted it’s better and more affordable. Via trains can travel up to 160 kilometres an hour
[...]
Toronto-Ottawa
Current trip: 4:01
Dedicated tracks: 2:30
Ottawa-Montreal
Current trip: 1:50
Dedicated tracks: 1:20
Toronto-Montreal
Current trip: 4:42
Dedicated tracks: 3:45]
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...e-along-quebec-ontario-route/article29638997/
[Currently, Via’s average speed in the shared Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto corridor is 103 kilometres per hour, but a dedicated track for passenger rail would see the average speed increase to between 145 km/h and 153 km/h, with a top speed of 177 km/h.]
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...t-get-access-to-dedicated-track-fleet-upgrade
[Via trains could go far faster — up to 160 km/h — cutting travel times. For example, the trip between Toronto and Ottawa would drop to 2.5 hours from four hours now. A trip between Toronto-Montreal would be 3.75 hours — about an hour shorter.]
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ew-trains-frequent-service-to-woo-riders.html
[VIA says a dedicated rail track would allow its trains to travel at a "higher conventional speed" of 177 km/h, up from 100 km.h today.]
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/1...rail-yves-desjardins-siciliano_n_8473342.html
As to passing points, there can be many, and at station stops. In fact, it's a given. For GO and VIA to share the same track, passing loops also become lay-bys. This will, of course, take the latest and best signalling and control systems. CBTC is a given.
A delay of say twenty minutes until the next passing loop? Compare that to hours sharing with freight.
Double track the answer? Well that complicates the using of the old Northern RoW and building entirely new dedicated tracks along the lakeshore. Use CPs lakeshore route and move freight to CN's track?
Then you also have to double CPs track. Simple logistical analyses would reveal all of this, but of course, agendas get in the way of that. HFR too fast for level crossings? There's a lot more on the lakeshore alignment.
In the event, 160kmh (99mph) is the max allowed for level crossings in Canada for passenger unless a slow order is in effect. (Edit to Add: F40s are limited to 90 or 95 mph, and CN itself applies speed restrictions on the Lakeshore Route below what TC requires)
Via’s plan falls short of full high-speed rail, but Mr. Desjardins-Siciliano insisted it’s better and more affordable. Via trains can travel up to 160 kilometres an hour
[...]
Toronto-Ottawa
Current trip: 4:01
Dedicated tracks: 2:30
Ottawa-Montreal
Current trip: 1:50
Dedicated tracks: 1:20
Toronto-Montreal
Current trip: 4:42
Dedicated tracks: 3:45]
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...e-along-quebec-ontario-route/article29638997/
[Currently, Via’s average speed in the shared Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto corridor is 103 kilometres per hour, but a dedicated track for passenger rail would see the average speed increase to between 145 km/h and 153 km/h, with a top speed of 177 km/h.]
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...t-get-access-to-dedicated-track-fleet-upgrade
[Via trains could go far faster — up to 160 km/h — cutting travel times. For example, the trip between Toronto and Ottawa would drop to 2.5 hours from four hours now. A trip between Toronto-Montreal would be 3.75 hours — about an hour shorter.]
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ew-trains-frequent-service-to-woo-riders.html
[VIA says a dedicated rail track would allow its trains to travel at a "higher conventional speed" of 177 km/h, up from 100 km.h today.]
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/1...rail-yves-desjardins-siciliano_n_8473342.html
As to passing points, there can be many, and at station stops. In fact, it's a given. For GO and VIA to share the same track, passing loops also become lay-bys. This will, of course, take the latest and best signalling and control systems. CBTC is a given.
A delay of say twenty minutes until the next passing loop? Compare that to hours sharing with freight.
Double track the answer? Well that complicates the using of the old Northern RoW and building entirely new dedicated tracks along the lakeshore. Use CPs lakeshore route and move freight to CN's track?
Then you also have to double CPs track. Simple logistical analyses would reveal all of this, but of course, agendas get in the way of that. HFR too fast for level crossings? There's a lot more on the lakeshore alignment.
In the event, 160kmh (99mph) is the max allowed for level crossings in Canada for passenger unless a slow order is in effect. (Edit to Add: F40s are limited to 90 or 95 mph, and CN itself applies speed restrictions on the Lakeshore Route below what TC requires)
Last edited:
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Not exactly: All those graphs, tables and maps were compiled using nothing else than Microsoft Excel, Google Earth, Paint.NET and publicly accessible data sources. Unfortunately, I can no longer post any such material, but my posts are indeed still online. Nevertheless, if anyone wants to calculate somewhat realistic timetables, I will gladly share my Excel template with anyone interested...