News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 920     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 356     0 

VIA Rail

SamStar said:
No mention of the Mont-Royal tunnel share between VIA and the REM.
Click to expand...

Not knowing Montreal that intimately....I will ask this, knowing it might be a stupid question.

How much would it cost to bore a new single track tunnel between Central Station and Outremont?

It's not that far, and HFR is probably never going to be more than hourly. One track occupied by one train twice an hour is adequate. Risk profile of a single HFR train in a tunnel is very different than for a rapid transit lines. Perhaps the fire codes are a little more lenient than for a mass transit line (what is being done to bring the existing tunnel up to modern codes, anyways? It's a straight bore deep in the Mountain).

In the scope of what's being proposed, it might not be a showstopper for the cost envelope, and it would remove the REM conflict. Obviously, if someone has to build a new tunnel, VIA's needs are minimalist compared to REM.

- Paul
 
Piece by Hamilton-East Stoney Creek Liberal MP Bob Bratina mentioning possibility of increased VIA service to Niagara Falls and mention of VIA stopping at the future Stoney Creek GO station (doubt this would happen).

Working to bring GO service back to Stoney Creek area

... In 1973, I arranged a ceremony to formally close the old CN station on Lake Avenue. My friend Clare Brocklebank was the station agent, and Bill Cant of Fruitland was the local railway superintendent who helped plan the event. Forty-four years later, I am working to see the return of train service to Stoney Creek after getting a new GO station for Hamilton downtown.

Although it is a GO Transit facility, VIA Rail’s current New York train will likely stop here and there is a chance VIA Rail Niagara trains could be restored after being discontinued in 2012 during the previous term of government.

GO Train service will extend to Niagara several years from now, but I believe a joint effort by municipal, provincial and federal elected officials could result in a very fast and cost-effective resumption of VIA rail service in combination with GO Transit ...
 
So it looks like the scope of VIA HFR has changed again. Over the past year and a bit, I've used an infographic on VIA's HFR webpage to track changes on the project. This infographic has had many different versions, and I've posted them all (including the most recent one). Some changes between the most recent infographic and the previous one are: overall cost up ($5.5 billion total, $1.5 billion for fleet, 4 billion for infrastructure, another $2 billion to electrify - uncertain if electrification will initially get funded), Quebec City is now officially recognized as a part of the project, ridership is 9.9 million per year using the new benchmark of 2030, construction time is down to 4 years, trip times are now promised to be reduced by 1/4 rather than 1/3.

(Most recent version directly below)
0AF1pXI.jpg


gkP4u7t.png


2kRRenm.png


zPTaNfz.png
 
alexanderglista said:
overall cost up ($5.5 billion total, $1.5 billion for fleet, 4 billion for infrastructure, another $2 billion to electrify - uncertain if electrification will initially get funded)
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that HFR and the fleet renewal programme are two independent (though certainly interrelated) initiatives (and that it is at the sole discretion of the federal government and other potential investors whether and how the project is to be funded and built):
VIA Rail said:
WHAT:

VIA Rail’s train fleet is naturally approaching the end of its useful life, and will need to be replaced. Safety is not one of the reasons for its renewal.

[...]

COST:

Estimates for replacement of the fleet, currently composed of 160 cars and 40 locomotives are between $1 billion (a diesel fleet) and $1.3 billion (a diesel/electric dual-mode fleet).

It’s too early to determine exactly what type of equipment will make up this new fleet. There are a number of options being considered. One thing is certain: the fleet components will be tested for compliance with the industry’s highest quality standards.
Click to expand...
In any case, the need for a new fleet is independent from the desirability of HFR...
 
Urban Sky said:
Keep in mind that HFR and the fleet renewal programme are two independent (though certainly interrelated) initiatives (and that it is at the sole discretion of the federal government and other potential investors whether and how the project is to be funded and built):

In any case, the need for a new fleet is independent from the desirability of HFR...
Click to expand...

not entirely true imo....whats the point in buying equipment if the corridor that it is intended to use it on is incompatible...you dont see rdcs for corridor service... when buying their new fleet they do need
to keep its intended usage in mind. we've already seen what happened when trains purchased for 1 use end up being used for something else and required modification or did not perform as well as originally intended...

that being said, the current constraints from fully realising hfr shouldnt dictate the fleet type as well (electrification) they need to consider carefully as well as plan optimistically.
 
SamStar said:
Interesting article on the Mtl-Qc portion of the HFR project.
$ 1.5 billion, approximately 450 millions for Trois-Rivières and the surroundings. Elimination of 88/112 crossings, travel time of 90 minutes. No mention of the Mont-Royal tunnel share between VIA and the REM.

http://www.lhebdojournal.com/actual...rain-siffler-a-la-gare-de-trois-rivieres.html
(Google translate : https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http://www.lhebdojournal.com/actualites/2017/1/25/on-entend-deja-le-train-siffler-a-la-gare-de-trois-rivieres.html&sandbox=1 )
Click to expand...

It's crazy that they are looking at building it to Quebec City or Windsor. Tor-Ott-Mtl makes sense. But the cost to build the dedicated route on the North Shore all the way to Quebec City is astronomical for a population of 1.1M (and it's urban spawl. If you exclude Levis which this project will not serve its only 700,000.

And how many of you think they will include the Quebec City route without going past Toronto in Ontario? Have they been to the airport in QC? Where is the demand?
 
I always feel like these types of projects become overly ambitious, and then their overwhelming cost and technicality mean that they get shoved aside by some politician, or they spend a decade in development hell.

Just build the new dedicated tracks, and use the current fleet, for now. Worry about electrification and all that other stuff later.

We have trains stuck behind freight trains, and even a billion for dedicated tracks will do wonders.

Worry about the other stuff behind the scenes, but showcasing it now just drives up the cost, public and political expectations, and makes things even harder to get done, and take so long to get done that a new politician can swoop in and cancel everything.


Baby steps.
 
That project would largely serve QC-Montreal trips I imagine, and services Trois Riviere which has no service currently. Yea, not many trips from QC are going to go to Windsor. Obviously. But it is no different than how not many people take Acela from Washington to Boston - instead they take some portion of the line.
 
robmausser said:
I always feel like these types of projects become overly ambitious, and then their overwhelming cost and technicality mean that they get shoved aside by some politician, or they spend a decade in development hell.

Just build the new dedicated tracks, and use the current fleet, for now. Worry about electrification and all that other stuff later.

We have trains stuck behind freight trains, and even a billion for dedicated tracks will do wonders.

Worry about the other stuff behind the scenes, but showcasing it now just drives up the cost, public and political expectations, and makes things even harder to get done, and take so long to get done that a new politician can swoop in and cancel everything.


Baby steps.
Click to expand...


unfortunately that shouldve been done in the 90s or even the early 2000s... problem is as with all canadian infrastructure and procurement mantra, we tend to drag on until every last fibre of existence is stretched out
of the equipment before we replace them. fact is, both things are a must now and they have no choice but to do both. Hopefully in the future they will realise it its more economical to sell and replace when theres still some life than
to frankenstein and scrap just to save a buck here and there
 
There are enough hints that we are about to see an "announcement" from Ottawa about VIA. Some are speculating that this is the "go" decision on the Toronto-Montreal (and beyond, perhaps) upgrade we have waited for for decades. I am at the skeptical end (although I will be delighted to be proven wrong). Rather than just have the announcement come out, and then be accused of pessimism if we pick it apart, I figured it would be sensible to describe in advance what a positive announcement would look like. So, here are seven potential points that are the acid proof that Ottawa is or isn't moving on VIA.

  • Equipment - New equipment is urgently required. This does not hinge on whether VIA expands and constructs new lines, or continues to use its existing routes. The recent call for suppliers' proposals is equally consistent with higher speed and performance and with the existing system. The government has two options: fund the new equipment directly, or fund it on a commercial basis. No need to debate that. What is critical is for VIA to have the green light to proceed with an order and the funding assured one way or the other. IMHO, there is no reason to defer this decision any longer, nor does it hang on the rest of the package. If the "announcement" doesn't provide a path forward on equipment, then nothing much is being announced, and one must ask if VIA is being slowly strangled.

  • Routing - If a new routing is being proposed, it's time to take the wraps off what that routing is.

  • Performance Envelope - Once and for all....are we talking same-as-Kingston-Sub 150 km/h, or something greater? How much greater? (The logical next step is 175 km/h, as that's the maximum that Transport Canada will allow over grade crossings.... if something higher than that is planned, the scope of grade separation goes up by a quantum)(The next higher level beyond 175 is 200 km/h-ish)(Beyond that, we are indeed talking true HSR, and I see no sign of that being in the cards)

  • Environmental Assessment - it's a prerequisite and is on critical path to any shovel hitting the ground. So - is the government willing to fund it and give it a green light? A pretty small bit of seed money is required, doesn't need investors to fund this. Again, if this isn't ready to go, I would question Ottawa's sincerity about any of this.

  • Commercial basis - Does VIA have the green light to negotiate with investors to raise funds? How much equity is Ottawa advancing, and in which Fiscal Year will it arrive? How much backstopping or risk mitigation is Ottawa offering?

  • Relationship with Railways - If there are interfaces or joint uses planned with CN and CP, is Ottawa giving VIA any legal bargaining power? Or is VIA expected to approach the railways cap (and wallet) in hand and just see how it goes? Does VIA have a green light to negotiate? Does VIA have an envelope or terms of reference?

  • Electrification - personally I don't consider this a show-stopper, and it can be bolted on later or have its own commercial threshold and separate provision. If nothing is said concretely about electrification, I'm not worried.

If we get a grandiose Ontario-style "Del Duca promise" but none of these specifics addressed, then I'm going to infer that Ottawa is stringing us along, and go back to thinking about other things. If we get some meat on the above, then maybe we actually have light at the end of a very long tunnel.

I'm going to score the "announcement" (if it comes) out of seven, using the above. A score of three - EA, equipment, routing - would be a passing grade.

- Paul

PS - sorry, long rant, took two cups of coffee. At least it kept me thinking about something other than this weekends' current events.
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
That project would largely serve QC-Montreal trips I imagine, and services Trois Riviere which has no service currently. Yea, not many trips from QC are going to go to Windsor. Obviously. But it is no different than how not many people take Acela from Washington to Boston - instead they take some portion of the line.
Click to expand...

But there are not that many trips that go from Quebec City to Mtl either. 12 flights a day with a combination of Q400, Dash8 (50 seats) and Dash 8 (37 seats). Very similar with London - Toronto (9 flights/day).

You also have to exclude the connecting flights. Probably 50% of these passengers don't even want to be in Montreal or Toronto...they just want to be at work/vacation elsewhere but they need a stopover.

Compare that with Toronto-Ott where Air Canada has 16 flights (some with A320's which have 150 seats). Plus Tor-Mtl.
 
Depends where the standard is. QC-MTL has two freeway connections with significant traffic too, and I believe the VIA fast service planned is aimed more at existing ground trips than at airline trips. You need HSR to compete with that type of travel.

No doubt Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal is busier - but that does not mean that Montreal-Trois Riviere-Quebec City doesn't need improved service either.


I see this project as a sort of "golden egg" of the proposed infrastructure investment bank. The fact that QC has apparently been included in the project as well seems to be to be a political push from the government. I certainly see this getting funding soon given the big talk the Liberals are putting on. Just gotta wait and see.

Speed wise I imagine they will be going with the 175km/h range, if not 200km/h if they can convince Transport Canada to allow at grade crossings. They may do 200km/h on grade separated sections too, and run at 175 where crossings exist. I feel they need those speeds to make the travel times they are talking about.
 
muller877 said:
But there are not that many trips that go from Quebec City to Mtl either. 12 flights a day with a combination of Q400, Dash8 (50 seats) and Dash 8 (37 seats). Very similar with London - Toronto (9 flights/day).

You also have to exclude the connecting flights. Probably 50% of these passengers don't even want to be in Montreal or Toronto...they just want to be at work/vacation elsewhere but they need a stopover.

Compare that with Toronto-Ott where Air Canada has 16 flights (some with A320's which have 150 seats). Plus Tor-Mtl.
Click to expand...

It's only a 3 hour drive between Montreal and QC. Most travellers do not use a flight to get there.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top