crs1026
Superstar
That may be a good solution for Manitoba, leading to renewed use of the Hudson Bay route. I wonder though if people in Churchill would care. For them, it's still the loss of their current town.
- Paul
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
That may be a good solution for Manitoba, leading to renewed use of the Hudson Bay route. I wonder though if people in Churchill would care. For them, it's still the loss of their current town.
- Paul
MisterF
Senior Member
On the issue of the sharp curves and difficult terrain between Havelock and Perth, one possibility is that Via is planning to rebuild the less challenging portions to a higher speed standard. They want to order trains that can go 200 km/h, so maybe parts of the line could be built to handle those speeds while the parts on the Canadian Shield would be slower. Parts of the line from Markham to Peterborough and Perth to Ottawa are relatively straight and could have some curves smoothed out like what was discussed earlier. That way the trains could slow down to 130 or so through the tighter curves on the Shield and still meet the desired travel times. I could be way off base but it's worth thinking about.
A lot of high speed lines in Europe and Asia actually run through very rugged terrain including forests and mountain ranges. The one between Moscow and St. Petersburg for example runs through moose habitat. Of course, Via's proposal isn't high speed so it wouldn't need all the fencing and wildlife overpasses that an HSR line would need.
What advantages would Port Nelson have over Churchill? It seems to me that fixing the existing rail line would be easier and cheaper. Reactivating Port Nelson would mean rebuilding a rail line, town, and port facilities that have been abandoned for a century. Churchill already has all that infrastructure, it just needs to be fixed.
crs1026
Superstar
muller877
Senior Member
No advantages. Port Nelson failed because of the silt flowing out of the river and building up near the wharf (plus others). Even with a few dams on the river there is still a lot of silt flowing out that will build up on the wharf (requiring constant dredging). They moved it for a reason that still exists today
cplchanb
Senior Member
Gist please for the muggle non subscribers?
crs1026
Superstar
Apologies - I missed the paywall. Article is by Konrad Yakabuski. Summary -
- He's critical of HSR's potential in the Canadian context, argues it is a fiscal "black hole" even in other countries eg France, Spain
- But he likes HFR as a "quintessentially Canadian compromise"
- Critical of VIA for not releasing more technical information to address concerns over the "current logistical and competitive obstacles preventing HFR service to Toronto's Union Station or Montreal's Gare Centrale." - ie the concerns we have been discussing on this list
- Predicts stiff resistance from competitors especially air service Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal
- Suggests the GTAA is backing the Ontario HSR plan because that plan does not represent competition to air (not really that much of a air market Toronto-London-Windsor) but that its transit hub proposal is an attempt to sabotage VIA's HFR (because of the threat to T-O-M air market)
- Suggests VIA is in competition with GTAA for Investment Bank funds, and investors will not back both projects because (he says) their impacts are in conflict
- But in the end (after seeming to carp from all directions) he says Ottawa should go ahead with HFR
I'm puzzled on his take on the GTAA but perhaps he has been talking to them off the record?
- Paul
steveintoronto
Superstar
In fact it would be retrograde, as the permafrost is melting faster the further south from Churchill one goes (with few exceptions). The real shame was that the line wasn't surveyed before they started, and a more direct routing could have gone to Churchill....and on rock most of the way, not permafrost. Too late now, the challenge is going to be to stabilize the underlying support for the roadbed.
That was an interesting point he made that hadn't really crystallized for me prior. That being said, HSR through Pearson still strikes me as being fanciful to say the least. A transfer at Woodbine Racetrack is unavoidable in practical terms, HSR or HFR. Good summary, btw.
I suspect that article can be found on PressReader. Indeed, just Googled:
What to do with Via Rail? - PressReader
https://www.pressreader.com/canada/the-globe-and-mail-alberta.../281651075233608
Aug 25, 2017 - Forty years after prime minister Pierre Trudeau created Via Rail with a ... The billions in spending would not produce high-speed bullet trains ... in support of Via's pitch in an effort to pressure the federal Liberals into supporting the plan. ... to pool public money and private dollars from institutional investors ...
It might take registering with PressReader. I used them before subscribing to the Globe. Globe's introductory offer is an absolute steal...
kEiThZ
Superstar
That is some truly flawed analysis right there.
How is the GTAA transit hub competing with HFR? He clearly doesn't understand what the airlines want. And he doesn't understand what the transit hub will do for the Western GTA. It's far more than just HSR connectivity to Windsor. He doesn't seem to understand that the GTAA has to improve regional connectivity to Pearson or the government will be forced to build airports in Pickering and airlines will have to increase service to Hamilton. It's either improved transit connection or traffic severely limiting access, which will divert growth to other airports. How this competes with HFR is beyond me. And if he is truly talking to GTAA execs and this is what they think, then they are about as incompetent as he is. But I doubt they think that.
He also does not seem to get that by his assertion the Pearson transit hub is entirely dependent on the Windsor HSR. But that's clearly not true since the GTAA is plodding along on the transit hub anyway with design and definition work. As well as looking for financing....and they've indicated they can self-finance too. All while TKL HSR is a vague whisper of an idea.
Air Canada has long realized that there's gold in the US markets. Whatever they can do to increase throughput of Intl-US or Intl-Intl connections at Pearson will pay off. They want to reduce domestic flying as much as possible to Pearson. Will they lose customers to HFR? Absolutely. But on the other hand, the largest victim will be Porter. The second biggest victim will be the more domestically focused Westjet. I question whether Porter can survive HFR. And for AC, HFR will give them an excuse to limit frequencies and equipment size to Ottawa and Montreal. They'll still fly every 1-1.5 hrs to each city. But the planes will be smaller and focused on feeder traffic.
Even Westjet sees the writing on the wall. And have launched international services to Europe themselves. So I really don't get what this author is on about.
How is the GTAA transit hub competing with HFR? He clearly doesn't understand what the airlines want. And he doesn't understand what the transit hub will do for the Western GTA. It's far more than just HSR connectivity to Windsor. He doesn't seem to understand that the GTAA has to improve regional connectivity to Pearson or the government will be forced to build airports in Pickering and airlines will have to increase service to Hamilton. It's either improved transit connection or traffic severely limiting access, which will divert growth to other airports. How this competes with HFR is beyond me. And if he is truly talking to GTAA execs and this is what they think, then they are about as incompetent as he is. But I doubt they think that.
He also does not seem to get that by his assertion the Pearson transit hub is entirely dependent on the Windsor HSR. But that's clearly not true since the GTAA is plodding along on the transit hub anyway with design and definition work. As well as looking for financing....and they've indicated they can self-finance too. All while TKL HSR is a vague whisper of an idea.
Air Canada has long realized that there's gold in the US markets. Whatever they can do to increase throughput of Intl-US or Intl-Intl connections at Pearson will pay off. They want to reduce domestic flying as much as possible to Pearson. Will they lose customers to HFR? Absolutely. But on the other hand, the largest victim will be Porter. The second biggest victim will be the more domestically focused Westjet. I question whether Porter can survive HFR. And for AC, HFR will give them an excuse to limit frequencies and equipment size to Ottawa and Montreal. They'll still fly every 1-1.5 hrs to each city. But the planes will be smaller and focused on feeder traffic.
Even Westjet sees the writing on the wall. And have launched international services to Europe themselves. So I really don't get what this author is on about.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
I agree with most of what you are writing, but as I've written before, I don't like to see the competence of professionals denied by amateurs without knowledge of (or access to) the information on which those professionals base their claims. The hypothesis that the author has talked with some insiders in the GTAA was mere speculation, introduced by Paul. Please also note that this was an editorial and that such commentary pieces are not subject to the same expectations in terms of depth of research than actual news articles...
kEiThZ
Superstar
As I said earlier, I doubt they think that. The fact that the journalist speculates this, tells me, he probably hasn't talked to anybody at GTAA. Or they'd have explained the whole point of the transit hub to him. He seems to think it's all about a collector from southwestern Ontario. Why a whole hub would be needed for that is beyond me.
Apparently, the idea that GTA traffic could get bad enough to force growth to divert to Pickering and Hamilton eluded him, despite the fact that the GTAA transit hub pitch includes the argument that Pearson has a rather low share of transit usage in comparison to competitor hubs, and that this needs to be increased.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
My point was that your expectations in an editorial article of a mainstream and generalist newspaper bewilder me. Given the quality of the rest of the editorial and the fact that even you concede that there are actors in the aviation industry which might indeed regard HFR more as a threat than an opportunity, I find calling the author "incompetent" slightly exaggerated and an unnecessary distraction from all the other points he is making and may be worth discussing as well. Also (you may correct me if I'm wrong), I assume that your expertise in journalism is somewhat weaker than it is in engineering...
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
crs1026 said: ↑
Personally, I'm seeing more hope for HFR *without direct Gov't involvement* (Infrastructure Bank or otherwise) as time and developments continue...and if it is direct investment (internal or external nationally), I see this being HFR+ (not HSR, but closer in speed in some sections that are grade separated).
I'm leaning towards a company or consortium of related companies not only funding the HFR route, but also the rolling stock and associated electrical equipment to go with it all. No tenders, no InfraBank terms and conditions. And it will be designed and built in record time (it will still take years, but probably less than five). And it will be a showcase for the company's technology in North America. If they break even, or even operate at a slight loss, it's more than worth their while in the long term. It will be tailored and offered to lease to VIA to operate it as an integral leg of their system.
And a real long shot? They buy BBD's rail operation, or parts of it. Siemens and others will buy the rest.
To which I replied:
I now retract that, albeit with reservations. From something I've read elsewhere, Paul may be more right than wrong on this, and there might be more 'on record' than can be referenced at this point in time.
Personally, I'm seeing more hope for HFR *without direct Gov't involvement* (Infrastructure Bank or otherwise) as time and developments continue...and if it is direct investment (internal or external nationally), I see this being HFR+ (not HSR, but closer in speed in some sections that are grade separated).
I'm leaning towards a company or consortium of related companies not only funding the HFR route, but also the rolling stock and associated electrical equipment to go with it all. No tenders, no InfraBank terms and conditions. And it will be designed and built in record time (it will still take years, but probably less than five). And it will be a showcase for the company's technology in North America. If they break even, or even operate at a slight loss, it's more than worth their while in the long term. It will be tailored and offered to lease to VIA to operate it as an integral leg of their system.
And a real long shot? They buy BBD's rail operation, or parts of it. Siemens and others will buy the rest.
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
Maybe I should have said.... perhaps he has been talking to *someone in the air industry* ???
We may be giving the air sector too much credit by assuming that everyone is all on the same page. Certainly some airline strategists will trade a low-margin T-O-M slot for a higher margin Toronto- US slot. But, at the same time, airlines have a lot of capital tied up in smaller Dash 8's and Embraer's and Bombardiers that in the near term depends on revenue from T--O-M flights. And, any number of people may see their present empire upset by the transition. So, some maypush to protect status quo even if other see the Windsor HSR and VIA HFR as an exciting opportunity. As noted, each airline may have a different take on this. The GTAA may have a different take than some of its customer airlines.
I do believe that journalists, even those doing op-ed pieces, do some modicum of research before they write anything. So I doubt the Globe collumnist - who is a generalist, not a transportation pundit - reached his conclusions off the top of his head. What I took away from the article is the likelihood that there are still plenty of snipers out there with a self interest in seeing HFR rejected.... which means that the government will approach the decision knowing that they will amke some people happy, but others very unhappy.
I also did a skim of Flightaware.com to see just how many flights there are between, say, Ottawa and Montreal. My conclusion was, if VIA can up the ante on Montreal- Ottawa flights to even say 90 minutes end to end, no sane person would ever buy an air ticket again. Cheaper and shorter taxi rides, no security checkpoint, and the gate to gate timing of those flights is not that stellar. And.... the planes used are fairly small. So limited revenue yield per flight. Even if fuel efficient, they probably use more fuel on takeoff than a train would use for the entire trip. Some of us may have found the Havelock caper daunting, but if an Ottawa Montreal HSR were ever IPO'd, I would buy stock in an instant.
- Paul
We may be giving the air sector too much credit by assuming that everyone is all on the same page. Certainly some airline strategists will trade a low-margin T-O-M slot for a higher margin Toronto- US slot. But, at the same time, airlines have a lot of capital tied up in smaller Dash 8's and Embraer's and Bombardiers that in the near term depends on revenue from T--O-M flights. And, any number of people may see their present empire upset by the transition. So, some maypush to protect status quo even if other see the Windsor HSR and VIA HFR as an exciting opportunity. As noted, each airline may have a different take on this. The GTAA may have a different take than some of its customer airlines.
I do believe that journalists, even those doing op-ed pieces, do some modicum of research before they write anything. So I doubt the Globe collumnist - who is a generalist, not a transportation pundit - reached his conclusions off the top of his head. What I took away from the article is the likelihood that there are still plenty of snipers out there with a self interest in seeing HFR rejected.... which means that the government will approach the decision knowing that they will amke some people happy, but others very unhappy.
I also did a skim of Flightaware.com to see just how many flights there are between, say, Ottawa and Montreal. My conclusion was, if VIA can up the ante on Montreal- Ottawa flights to even say 90 minutes end to end, no sane person would ever buy an air ticket again. Cheaper and shorter taxi rides, no security checkpoint, and the gate to gate timing of those flights is not that stellar. And.... the planes used are fairly small. So limited revenue yield per flight. Even if fuel efficient, they probably use more fuel on takeoff than a train would use for the entire trip. Some of us may have found the Havelock caper daunting, but if an Ottawa Montreal HSR were ever IPO'd, I would buy stock in an instant.
- Paul
Urban Sky
Senior Member
90 minutes travel time for 400 km distance translates into an average speed of 267 km/h, which to the best of my knowledge is faster than any revenue HSR in service at this moment. The Ecotrain study put the travel time for a 300 km/h HSR to 1:50 hours and 2:25 hours for a 200 km/h fast Diesel train:
Source: Ecotrain Study (2010, Deliverable 6 - Part 2 of 2, p.16)
Attachments
crs1026
Superstar
I was referring to Ottawa- Montreal..... 180ish kms.... my point being, Toronto- Ottawa may have drawn too much of our attention when the Ottawa- Montreal leg is the most compelling and a very easy to achieve 'thin edge of the wedge'.
- Paul
- Paul