VIA Rail

[lenaitch]

the old M+O route (which is railbanked)

I did not know that. Tnx.

 

[lenaitch]

There's plenty of room for 2 tracks nearly everywhere. Does true HSR require a wider ROW? There would certainly need to be more grade separation.

I don't know the width of the ROW nor the required width for 2-tracks let alone 2 HSR tracks. There has to be some minimum provision for drainage, residential set-backs, etc. It has to be more than grade separations (highly disruptive in their own right) - I just can't imagine a 200+ train ripping across the end of my backyard.

 

[SamStar]

Has VIA ever ran corridor trains with 2 business class cars ?

 

[dowlingm]

Paris to Strasbourg (320km/h), Paris to Bordeaux (320km/h), Madrid to Málaga (300km/h).

Strasbourg is a major government centre (European Parliament), five times further than Kitchener, and on the route to Stuttgart for further connections (e.g. Munich). Bordeaux is almost six times further. Also, France has its rail in state ownership and has other state interests in high speed electric rail. Any European comparator has to be viewed through the lens of the EU railway packages (https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/packages/2013_en) which promote open access and interoperability where in Canada what the rail owner says largely goes.

 

[dowlingm]

While VIA has invested a lot of money in the Alexandria line - if there were a HxR proposal for Ottawa-Montreal, there should be a head to head comparison of the old M+O route (which is railbanked) and the current VIA route.

Grade separation in those towns is a big consideration and a major cost item. I don't know what a head to head comparison would call for, but it's worth an inexpert Google maps examination. The M+O also avoids Coteau altogether, so no need to rebuild the CN yard for VIA.

Coteau is avoided but the M+O ends at Rigaud (CP route, AMT from Hudson to Lucien L'Allier) so the question arises of how do you get to Central from there.
http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/pardon-me-boy-was-that-the-rigaud-choo-choo

 

[rbt]

Strasbourg is a major government centre (European Parliament), five times further than Kitchener, and on the route to Stuttgart for further connections (e.g. Munich).

Sure, but HSR service terminates there and it drops back to normal speeds for a bit.

Kitchener is on route to Detroit, with a population larger than Stuttgart and Munich put together and no further in distance.

We're not used to train service in North America; but it isn't the population numbers/density, or economic capacity that's restricting it for those 600km and under trips.

 

[nephersir7]

In case you want an illustration of the exponential costs and diminishing returns increasing rail design speeds yields:
View attachment 126830
Source: New York State DOT and Transport Québec (2004, p.4)

Key quote from the same study (p.1):

FYI that particular study was updated in 2013:

http://www.bv.transports.gouv.qc.ca/mono/1149142/ (french-only)

 

[reaperexpress]

Just out of interest, where exactly in Europe and Asia is the precedent of linking one 500k city - especially one which is served by only 12 trains per day - over a distance of 100 km to the metropolis by HSR? Nevertheless, the good news is that there are many incremental stages between 6 trains per day and direction travelling at a maximum speed of 145-160 km/h with travel times of 90-120 minutes on a shared corridor and HSR traveling every 30 minutes at 300 km/h in 48 minutes on a dedicated infrastructure at a cost to the taxpayer of $14-$43 billion...

I was more responding to the notion that there's no catchment from Kitchener's future station than the idea that we should have HSR specifically. For a distance of only 100km, HSR doesn't provide that much benefit, Regional Rail would provide a much better cost-benefit ratio. That said, Amsterdam (1M) and Rotterdam (1M) are linked by a 300km/h high speed line and they're only 60 km apart.

 

[kEiThZ]

These discussions really ignore context. And any sense of long term goals. I thought we're trying to reduce the amount of driving between places. And here we are arguing that there's no market for these rail services so we shouldn't build them up? Apparently the idea that we could attracts ridership is really foreign to some.

HSR in the Toronto-Waterloo (which would cost a lot less than the $5 billion to get to London) and Ottawa-Montreal region would completely change regional dynamics in these regions. You essentially end up with a single cohesive job market, a single massive business services market a larger regional housing market. You can live in a condo in downtown Toronto and work a tech job in Waterloo. You can have all you tech guys in Waterloo. And your lawyers, finance and marketing consultants in Toronto. Live in Montreal, and work a federal job in Ottawa. Live in Ottawa and work a private sector job in Montreal. That kind of integration depends very much on not just the reliability and frequency of rail connections but the travel times involved.

By the logic show on here, we should just shut down VIA now. And have over whatever meager savings are there to making marginal improvements on regional rail in a handful of Canadian metros. Screw everybody else.

 

[dowlingm]

@kEiThZ - I don't want to shut down VIA but as I see it VIA is staggering along on minimal funding trying to add a frequency here or there and boarding passengers from low platforms beside freight tracks, while the pot of HSR gold is over the rainbow. A high frequency rail service, built on something like Brightline trainsets and spending on removing grade crossings etc. is doable without spending tens of billions, and material improvement can show up in a handful of years instead of being decades away. At the same time you have MPs from outside Eastern Canada who can legitimately ask why the national exchequer should support interurban commuting when neither Ontario or Quebec who will be principal beneficiaries are contributing, and the same largesse will not be extended to, for example, Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton.

 

[crs1026]

@kEiThZ - I don't want to shut down VIA but as I see it VIA is staggering along on minimal funding trying to add a frequency here or there and boarding passengers from low platforms beside freight tracks, while the pot of HSR gold is over the rainbow. A high frequency rail service, built on something like Brightline trainsets and spending on removing grade crossings etc. is doable without spending tens of billions, and material improvement can show up in a handful of years instead of being decades away.

I have wondered about the incrementalist view also. Certainly, if you look at the Northeast Corridor in the USA, Amtrak has had to cobble together the existing system (which is finally an integrated, high-quality end to end 125mph railroad) by eking out small incremental improvement projects over the last 45 years. It has finally come together, and it's credible - even the Trump budget left the Corridor alone, mostly - but it's not the most efficient use of money. Had the same progress been made sooner by spending larger lump sums faster, the system would have come together sooner and would have benefitted more people.

If we selected a more immediate goal for VIA, such as say another half billion of added trackage along the existing routes , we might stimulate enough improvement to stoke the public hunger for yet better service. That might put VIA on a path to public support and curiosity about government policy.

However, we make the same mistake of not spending money in big enough dollops to get the best return.

It is hugely disappointing that our political process doesn't look longer than a term or two. The case for HXR rail ought to be much stronger on the basis of 'hey, we can avoid building another 6 lanes of highway' than 'gosh, our new 6 lanes are full..... what now?".

At the same time you have MPs from outside Eastern Canada who can legitimately ask why the national exchequer should support interurban commuting when neither Ontario or Quebec who will be principal beneficiaries are contributing, and the same largesse will not be extended to, for example, Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton.

A fair point. I'm just back from Alberta and it's interesting how many issues are being discussed and acted on out there much as they are in the east. Some old stereotypes need to be revisited. As an example, Edmonton is awash in green-painted bike lanes on the roads. Yes, people plan to use them in winter. And they are building LRT energetically. Passenger rail has a future out there, if the right things are done about first mile - last mile issues.... the road is still a necessary ingredient at route ends.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

Paris to Strasbourg (320km/h), Paris to Bordeaux (320km/h), Madrid to Málaga (300km/h).

Distance covered: 439, 570 and 513 km, respectively - thus a multiple of Toronto-Kitchener (101 km), a distance for which HSR is certainly not the preferred rail technology, as correctly noted by Reaperexpress:

For a distance of only 100km, HSR doesn't provide that much benefit, Regional Rail would provide a much better cost-benefit ratio. That said, Amsterdam (1M) and Rotterdam (1M) are linked by a 300km/h high speed line and they're only 60 km apart.

Amsterdam to Rotterdam is of course no exception, but just the first segment of a HSR corridor which links Amsterdam, Schiphol Airport, Rotterdam, Antwerpen, Brussels and Paris over a distance of 524 km.

Plenty more comparisons for the 200km/h proposal in the HSR report (known as Option B). You start finding routes like Helsinki to Seinäjoki (population 150,000).

Further to Helsinki to Seinäjoki being also much more than 100 km (346 km), 200 km/h is not HSR, especially not in a North American context, as the FRA regulations on level crossings effectively divide the speed band as follows:

• 0-110 mph (0-176 km/h): Conventional rail (level crossings allowed)
• 111-125 mph (177-200 km/h): Higher-Speed rail (though misleadingly labelled "HSR Regional" below - "impenetrable barriers" required for level crossings)
• 126 mph (201 km/h) and more: High Speed Rail (no level crossings allowed, the removal of which is one of the biggest cost drivers in HSR construction, as correctly remarked by Paul)

Source: FRA (2011, p.20) [First posted in Post #2807]

That Toronto/Kitchener track, and many others in the GTA, are long overdue for massive passenger rail upgrades; both commuter and intercity.

Can't argue with that and neither commuter nor intercity rail requires a dedicated, entirely grade-separated infrastructure.

I suspect the M+O might win, as it's ruler straight, misses some of those small towns, and (I seem to recall) has generally better substructure. The Alexandria is curvier and IIRC has some wet areas.

Actually, the Alexandria Subdivision is "ruler straight" for more than half its length (36 km between Hawthrone Jct. and just before Casselman, 11 km between Casselman and Moose Creek, 11 km between Alexandria and Glen Robertson and another 12 km just before Coteau):

Has VIA ever ran corridor trains with 2 business class cars ?

If I recall correctly, trains 33 and 26 (Quebec-Montreal-Ottawa and v.v.) have had a second Business Car added since this month and this might have also been the case on trains 82 and 83 (London-Toronto and v.v.) in recent years...

FYI that particular study was updated in 2013:

http://www.bv.transports.gouv.qc.ca/mono/1149142/ (french-only)

Thank you very much, I can't believe I never came across that Study update (must be the most extensive study made so far for Montreal-NYC/Boston with over 150 pages)!

These discussions really ignore context. And any sense of long term goals. I thought we're trying to reduce the amount of driving between places. And here we are arguing that there's no market for these rail services so we shouldn't build them up? Apparently the idea that we could attracts ridership is really foreign to some.

Indeed, all discussions about HSR in Canada lack context: all European countries, which joined the club of HSR nations since 1990 (I unfortunately couldn't find any pre-1990 data on rail ridership, which is why I excluded France, Italy and Germany) have already had a multiple of the rail ridership (and trip length!) currently present in Canada. See table below:

Sources: UIC (2017) for year first HSR segment opened, Railway Association of Canada (2017, pp.5+20) for ridership figures of Canada, European Union (2017, pp.13+53) for population and rail ridership figures of ES, BE, UK and CH and Eurostat ("Railway transport - total annual passenger transport (1 000 pass., million pkm) (rail_pa_total)") for rail ridership data of NL, AT and PL.

At the same time you have MPs from outside Eastern Canada who can legitimately ask why the national exchequer should support interurban commuting when neither Ontario or Quebec who will be principal beneficiaries are contributing, and the same largesse will not be extended to, for example, Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton.

Given that there were more than 9 times as many people living in Canada than there were riders on board VIA trains last year (36,290,000 inhabitants vs. 3,974,004 passengers), you have had most probably a low single-digit percentage of Canadians who have actually travelled VIA that year (considering that not all passengers are Canadian and many travelled much more than once. For instance, I travelled 48 segments as a Canadian non-citizen and thus non-voter). As long as the number of active users is such a small fraction of the population, voters (and thus: politicians) will regard inter-city passenger rail from the taxpayer's rather than a passenger's perspective...

 

[rbt]

Distance covered: 439, 570 and 513 km, respectively - thus a multiple of Toronto-Kitchener (101 km), a distance for which HSR is certainly not the preferred rail technology, as correctly noted by Reaperexpress:

If I'm reading your response correctly, and I assume you're not suggesting due to the short distances that a highway is the best solution for increasing capacity in this corridor, then we both agree the HSR proposal should go to London, with a mid-point stop at Kitchener (rather than a terminus) and possibly beyond at some future date. That the 1 million in secondary population centers + distance is suitable.

Either the railway corridor gets upgraded for the frequencies proposed or it doesn't. The cost difference between 150km/h and 200km/h between Kitchener/Toronto is pretty minor. The bulk of the cost for grade separations applies to both due to the frequency of service.

That said, if there is going to be a "local" and "express" service, the express might as well run fast if the infrastructure is being built anyway. Right?

I mean, the airport train in Helsinki (P line) hits 170km/h, not because it needs to (it's a 15 minute trip) but simply because it can.


All that said, the MTO has a long-standing vague proposal to link the 410/407 intersection to the recent Highway 7 expansion. PCs have the Mid-Penn on their official agenda. The only question remaining is can Metrolinx introduce railway improvements before MTO manages to get funding for the highway.

 

[Urban Sky]

If I'm reading your response correctly, and I assume you're not suggesting due to the short distances that a highway is the best solution for increasing capacity in this corridor, then we both agree the HSR proposal should go to London, with a mid-point stop at Kitchener (rather than a terminus) and possibly beyond at some future date.

I was pointing out the less-than-subtle differences between Southwestern Ontario and actual HSR corridors in Europe. Regarding my personal opinion concerning the HSR plans in Southwestern Ontario, I refer to one of my previous posts:

As for the published Special Advisor's Final Report, once you note that the BCR decreases as the design speed increases and as the length (and especially the distance from Toronto) increases, you might guess what additional column and line I would have expected to see in the table below:
View attachment 112706
Source: High Speed Rail in Ontario - Special Advisor for High Speed Rail: Final Report (p. 46)

Keep in mind that "Scenario A" is a 300 km/h fast dedicated corridor, while "Scenario B" is a 250 km/h fast grade-separated but shared corridor...

The cost difference between 150km/h and 200km/h between Kitchener/Toronto is pretty minor. The bulk of the cost for grade separations applies to both due to the frequency of service.

I suggest that you revisit the FRA table I just posted for the regulatory differences between conventional, higher-speed and High Speed Rail. Also, I've seen rail lines in Japan, which accomodated 6 trains per hour and direction, were mostly single-tracked (!) and featured numerous at-grade crossings (even busy ones). Having to remove every single level crossing is a serious cost driver and therefore needs to be offset by significant tangible benefits in order to be justifiable...

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't want to shut down VIA but as I see it VIA is staggering along on minimal funding trying to add a frequency here or there and boarding passengers from low platforms beside freight tracks, while the pot of HSR gold is over the rainbow.

Never disputed that. What I was asking for was a thought exercise how the cost/benefit of upgrading the Ottawa-Montreal portion of the HFR corridor.

A high frequency rail service, built on something like Brightline trainsets and spending on removing grade crossings etc. is doable without spending tens of billions, and material improvement can show up in a handful of years instead of being decades away.

That's a great start. And I hope we build on that. The way I look at it...if we can say spend $3 billion to speed up Ottawa-Montreal, we'll have achieved HSR in that one corridor while making Toronto-Montreal substantially more competitive.

Now, admittedly there's opportunity costs to everything. And maybe $3 billion would be better spent elsewhere by the government. All I am suggesting is that I hope they've studied it and done some sensitivity analysis on how much speeding up certain portions pays off.

At the same time you have MPs from outside Eastern Canada who can legitimately ask why the national exchequer should support interurban commuting when neither Ontario or Quebec who will be principal beneficiaries are contributing, and the same largesse will not be extended to, for example, Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton.

If it's built by the CIB with private funding, nobody really gets to complain because federal contribution will be substantially reduced.

As for all the whiners, Ontarians and Quebecers really need to start asserting that a region where a quarter of the country's population lives deserves investment.

I do hope though, that a project is launched on Calgary-Edmonton eventually too.