VIA Rail

[kEiThZ]

@Urban Sky

Forgot about that graphic.

I always get this mixed up. So is the $4 billion over and above $1.5 billion for the fleet renewal? If that's the case, then I guess we're up to $5 million per km or thereabouts. The $2 billion for electrification is the figure I find most believable and straight forward.

Also hadn't noticed the change from previous posters on travel times. The fastest Toronto-Ottawa is 4 h 7 min. 25% less would put them at 3:05 hrs. The fastest Toronto-Montreal train is 4 hr 49 mins. This means a Toronto-Montreal target of 3:37 hrs. But since they are going through Ottawa, the fastest Ottawa-Montreal time is 1 hr 53 min which would go down to 1 hr 25 mins with 25% reduction. That would make Toronto-Montreal 4:30 hrs. Numbers not too far from what I prognosticated earlier.

 

[nfitz]

I view Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal as paramount. Quebec City to me is a nice to have....in Phase 2. Quebec City should be addressed the same time we address Kitchener and London.

I'm afraid that doesn't reflect the federal political reality though. The reality is, that they'll be in a battle just to avoid doing Calgary-Edmonton in the same package.

I believe nfitz is an engineer too.

I am a civil engineer - but my transportation and linear construction work is all before I graduated. So I know the theory - but I have no special knowledge that isn't public. And have avoided looking for any special knowledge from those I know who would have it.

$4 billion from Toronto to Quebec City really seems a stretch.

Unfortunately, there's a tradition in Quebec engineering and politics, to significantly under-price infrastructure costs - often at the direction of the client. The basis is, it's the only way it would ever get built. Personally, I always wondered how they got away with that kind of approach, as you'd think the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec (OIQ) would have been onto it. Mind you, I never understood how the OIQ never managed to notice the corruption that was evident to all, in Quebec engineering either - and that the province has now taken direct control of the OIQ, after the Charbonneau commission called them lax (which is funny, because they are red-tape nightmare on minor things, like forgetting to include your middle initial when you sign something ....).

I expect this is part of the reason the costs are being low-balled. But I don't know if that type of approach flies any more; it wouldn't here. Look at the uproar here, with only a $400 million over-run on the Spadina extension construction - about 15%. Much of it blamed on that they project started a couple of years after the budget assumed it would start, so they didn't account for the significant construction price index inflation. Compare that to the $750 million cost of the last Montreal Metro extension, which came in at 420% higher than the estimated $179 million. Any fool could tell you the $179 million estimate wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Even a later estimate, when they started was only $350 million.

I would guess, if the engineering estimate was done to any normal standard it would be 2-3 times higher. But I'm only guessing.

But you're right. None of us have access to those internal project reports. And this is why I keep saying, I am most curious to see what the CIB and the investment consortium they put together say. They're best placed to judge the business case.

That will be interesting. Pricing something for a provincial government that is telling you how to cost it low, is one thing.

 

[muller877]

In order to tilt the rail-air share between Toronto and Montreal in favour of rail, which would require a reduction of the travel time towards the magical 3 hours, you would need to increase the average speed from currently 100-120 km/h to 180 km/h (540 km distance divided by 3 hours), which absolutely necessitates the creation of a grade-separated and mostly dedicated greenfield corridor in order to reach speeds in excess of 200-240 km/h (125-150 mph)

This may be a silly question but want to understand.

Most high-speed rail lines run through land that is not wild. Or humans have killed off the larger wildlife hundreds of years ago. (Japan and Europe)

When Canada is looking at a high-speed rail solution what is the risk to the train when hitting a large animal (a moose)? Since it is lighter and more aerodynamic than the old locomotives are they designed for this type of collision?

Do other regions have monitoring systems to make sure the wildlife is not adversely impacted (number of rail-kills, changes to migration patterns, etc)? The corridor from Algonquin to Upper NY State is an important wildlife corridor.

 

[crs1026]

When Canada is looking at a high-speed rail solution what is the risk to the train when hitting a large animal (a moose)? Since it is lighter and more aerodynamic than the old locomotives are they designed for this type of collision?

Do other regions have monitoring systems to make sure the wildlife is not adversely impacted (number of rail-kills, changes to migration patterns, etc)? The corridor from Algonquin to Upper NY State is an important wildlife corridor.

As big as it is, a moose is within the crash worthiness tolerances for all Canadian trains. Trains hit them all the time, and generally the moose loses, but the results aren't pretty. You raise a good point that some of the attributes of aerodynamically styled rail equipment ...such as fiberglass noses....may not be up to the task in this respect. Crashworthiness aside, that kind of collision would disrupt service and would not be passenger friendly, so one would expect some attention to it in the plan.

There are things done in the Rockies, especially in the National Parks in the Banff corridor, to keep wildlife off highways and tracks while maintaining migratory passage. Such as underpasses specifically meant for the wildlife. I would expect the new line would have very secure fencing that would significantly reduce the potential for large wildlife (and people) on the tracks. What would be needed to maintain nature's mobility is a good question. And, since I gather there may still be level crossings, there is always the chance that an animal would enter the ROW at a grade crossing and then be unable to leave it.

This is one of the things I wonder about with the Havelock route. I would have expected a more detailed environmental review, given that it's pretty much natural land at this point. Perhaps that's yet to come, but this is not a small issue. Usually it's a matter of just adding mitigation, which is easy....but I know of infrastructure projects where things like the nesting ground of an endangered species sat squarely where the concrete was to be poured....and this became a showstopper. I hope VIA is attending to this, sooner than later.

- Paul

 

[ShonTron]

As big as it is, a moose is within the crash worthiness tolerances for all Canadian trains. Trains hit them all the time, and generally the moose loses, but the results aren't pretty. You raise a good point that some of the attributes of aerodynamically styled rail equipment ...such as fiberglass noses....may not be up to the task in this respect. Crashworthiness aside, that kind of collision would disrupt service and would not be passenger friendly, so one would expect some attention to it in the plan.

There are things done in the Rockies, especially in the National Parks in the Banff corridor, to keep wildlife off highways and tracks while maintaining migratory passage. Such as underpasses specifically meant for the wildlife. I would expect the new line would have very secure fencing that would significantly reduce the potential for large wildlife (and people) on the tracks. What would be needed to maintain nature's mobility is a good question. And, since I gather there may still be level crossings, there is always the chance that an animal would enter the ROW at a grade crossing and then be unable to leave it.

This is one of the things I wonder about with the Havelock route. I would have expected a more detailed environmental review, given that it's pretty much natural land at this point. Perhaps that's yet to come, but this is not a small issue. Usually it's a matter of just adding mitigation, which is easy....but I know of infrastructure projects where things like the nesting ground of an endangered species sat squarely where the concrete was to be poured....and this became a showstopper. I hope VIA is attending to this, sooner than later.

- Paul

You can see wildlife fencing -- and special overpasses -- on the newest sections of the twinned Highway 69 between the French River and Sudbury.

 

[MisterF]

Via Rail already runs through plenty of moose habitat. Other parts of the world like northern Europe, Russia, and northern China also have moose and they all have faster trains than what Via is proposing. Moose and other large animals shouldn't be an issue.

 

[robmausser]

As big as it is, a moose is within the crash worthiness tolerances for all Canadian trains. Trains hit them all the time, and generally the moose loses, but the results aren't pretty. You raise a good point that some of the attributes of aerodynamically styled rail equipment ...such as fiberglass noses....may not be up to the task in this respect. Crashworthiness aside, that kind of collision would disrupt service and would not be passenger friendly, so one would expect some attention to it in the plan.

There are things done in the Rockies, especially in the National Parks in the Banff corridor, to keep wildlife off highways and tracks while maintaining migratory passage. Such as underpasses specifically meant for the wildlife. I would expect the new line would have very secure fencing that would significantly reduce the potential for large wildlife (and people) on the tracks. What would be needed to maintain nature's mobility is a good question. And, since I gather there may still be level crossings, there is always the chance that an animal would enter the ROW at a grade crossing and then be unable to leave it.

This is one of the things I wonder about with the Havelock route. I would have expected a more detailed environmental review, given that it's pretty much natural land at this point. Perhaps that's yet to come, but this is not a small issue. Usually it's a matter of just adding mitigation, which is easy....but I know of infrastructure projects where things like the nesting ground of an endangered species sat squarely where the concrete was to be poured....and this became a showstopper. I hope VIA is attending to this, sooner than later.

- Paul

I'm pretty sure Moose Rail and Via Rail can figure out their scheduling in Ottawa without any collisions. I don't see how this is an issue.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm pretty sure Moose Rail and Via Rail can figure out their scheduling in Ottawa without any collisions. I don't see how this is an issue.

Paul was talking about actual Moose. The animals. Not the vapourware train company relying on regulatory tricks to force corridor owners to give them access.

Nobody is worried about collisions with Moose Rail, because their service has a low probability of actually materializing.

 

[kEiThZ]

That will be interesting. Pricing something for a provincial government that is telling you how to cost it low, is one thing.

It's not the province doing the estimating. Thought admittedly, VIA Rail doesn't have the best of track records if you see AG reports.

It'll be interesting to see what the large pension funds say, once the CIB puts up VIA's proposal to them. They probably have more experience in estimating costs in-house than VIA does.

 

[robmausser]

Paul was talking about actual Moose. The animals. Not the vapourware train company relying on regulatory tricks to force corridor owners to give them access.

Nobody is worried about collisions with Moose Rail, because their service has a low probability of actually materializing.

Oh gee, how embarrassed would I be if I wasn't joking

 

[nfitz]

It's not the province doing the estimating. Thought admittedly, VIA Rail doesn't have the best of track records if you see AG reports.

I was referring to other big projects - like the Orange line extension. I'm not sure VIA has ever had a big project, other than rolling stock purchases - and they tend to at least not increase in cost, while you await for them to arrive.

 

[Allandale25]

Latest on the Churchill situation:

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/l...-ship-rail-cars-south-by-barge-442172983.html

 

[Allandale25]

New York Times article on Churchill with a reference to the train service: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/...w-share&referer=https://t.co/VnISHLkHTm?amp=1

 

[dowlingm]

One thing I noticed when looking at the google map to understand the geography - the old alignment partially built from Amery to Port Nelson and then abandoned. I wonder at what point climate change will make using Churchill as an Arctic shipping hub moot, since Port Nelson (about 100km from Amery vs 240 to Churchill) will be navigable enough to use instead?

In the original attempt to use it as a port, the Nelson river caused silting and complicated the site for ships to tie up, but it likely flows a bit more slowly since Manitoba threw a bunch of hydro dams across it, with plans for more.

 

[steveintoronto]

Not the vapourware train company relying on regulatory tricks to force corridor owners to give them access.

Really? I suggest you read and understand what the Transportation Act and Relocations and Crossing Act state. They've been quoted many times in this and the MOOSE forum, but alas...

I guess for some "The Law" is a "regulatory trick"?

MOOSE, if an application to the CTA were made and upon examination met the law, and suitable compensation made for costs, could run on GO's tracks. (Edit to Add: And use their stations. Any competitor can if deemed to meet regulatory criteria)

• • 138 - Running Rights and Joint Track Usage
• 140 - DIVISION V - Transferring and Discontinuing the Operation of Railway Lines