VIA Rail

[steveintoronto]

Hopefully some journalist will eventually do a FOI request on the ‘alternatives’ study and we will have some hard data to pore over. It is ridiculous that these studies are being kept under wraps.
- Paul

An FOI request has been submitted by at least one journalist that I know of. From my understanding, the studies were on the mooted plans made public by VIA, and not engineering ones looking at a greater picture.

Once again, this is something that needs a private investment impetus which by its very nature will examine what is doable, both engineering and business case.

The demand is clearly there. What Cdns will find unsavoury is that this almost inevitably will be 'off-shore' funds, albeit those with 'deep pockets' (massively so, and they're looking for projects like this) will be commercially savvy enough to try and include domestic pension funds and the like to add a veneer of 'Canadian run' to an otherwise majority foreign owned enterprise. They would of course use associated company rolling stock, pretty much right off the shelf, albeit 'assembled' at a factory within Canada.

The present escalating trade war with the US only increases the desirability and business case of this coming to pass.

 

[dowlingm]

The 177km/h number intrigues me. 110mph is the top speed of an Amtrak-spec P42DC hauling 125mph capable coaches. Thus the signal scheme was optimized for 110mph. Why would VIA (who limits P42s to 100mph) who intend to buy 125mph capable rolling stock, pick 110 as target max speed? Sure it would be more money but you're going to be cab signalling anyway and this is presumably only on their own track. Does VIA perhaps plan to requalify a number of P42-LRC consists as 110 as some kind of hedge against not having enough new stock?

 

[crs1026]

^I believe 110 mph is the threshold above which level crossings aren't acceptable to TC. If we assume that HxR requires total grade separation, the cost rises significantly. Sure, ridership and marketability might be better with 120+, but it's a different cost to revenue proposition.

- Paul

 

[cplchanb]

https://www.talgo.com/en/rolling-stock/high-speed/250-dual/

This will prob not happen for the corridor renewal but talgo has a dual mode high speed train that would be perfect. Maybe they can adapt a version for the hfr network.

I wonder what talgo will out forward as their bid....

 

[steveintoronto]

^I believe 110 mph is the threshold above which level crossings aren't acceptable to TC. If we assume that HxR requires total grade separation, the cost rises significantly. Sure, ridership and marketability might be better with 120+, but it's a different cost to revenue proposition.

- Paul

There's also the very real possibility of a route going into service with mixed grade separated and non-separated sections. Separated could/would run at whatever speed the trainset is capable of (CTA and regs permitting) and then until the non-separated ones are replaced, 110mph (177 kph) is in force. This could shave at least a year off of RoW completion time. If the prime mode of traction is electric, it would be very short-sighted not to aim for 150 mph running since there's large numbers of options already available off-the-shelf save for the bells and whistles. In quite a few other jurisdictions in the world, 250 kph is chosen over 300+kph for a considerable saving in cost of rolling stock and track infrastructure. And the time difference is minimal for total travel time once it is totally grade separated.

Of course, due to catenary, it would be highly preferable if not mandated that the road go over the RoW, not the other way around.

This will prob not happen for the corridor renewal but talgo has a dual mode high speed train that would be perfect.

A number of manufacturers do. Other than a small diesel motor for shunting and pulling into sidings, I don't see the need, expense and weight in going multi-mode. Some manufacturers do it by 'modules' being added in or removed. I have no idea on the reliability of doing that, I'm skeptical, but once a 'consortium' commits to doing HxR, they're going to commit to all-electric between major cities. Perhaps a diesel module can be added-in for some that have to run 'off-grid' at the end of catenary.

Wikipedia has a surprisingly good piece on "Higher Speed Rail":

Higher-speed rail
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about rail service that is of a higher speed than conventional inter-city rail. For high-speed rail services with speeds more than 200 km/h (124 mph), see High-speed rail.

China Railways CRH6 on the Zhengzhou–Jiaozuo intercity railway

Higher-speed rail (HrSR[1]), also known as high-performance rail,[2] higher-performance rail,[3] or almost-high-speed rail,[4] is a jargon used to describe inter-city passenger rail services that have top speeds of more than conventional rail but are not high enough to be called high-speed rail services.[5] The term is also used by planners to identify the incremental rail improvements to increase train speeds and reduce travel time as alternatives to larger efforts to create or expand the high-speed rail networks.[6] Some countries use the term medium-speed rail, or semi-high speed rail instead.[7][8]
[...]
Speed limits
In Canada, the assumption about grade crossing is that operating higher-speed rail services between 160 and 200 km/h (99 and 124 mph) would require "improved levels of protection in acceptable areas".[28]

In the United States, railroad tracks are largely used for freight with at-grade crossings. Passenger trains in many corridors run on shared tracks with freight trains. Most trains are limited to top speeds of 79 mph (127 km/h) unless they are equipped with an automatic cab signal, automatic train stop, automatic train control or positive train control system approved by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).[29] In developing higher-speed rail services, one of those safety systems must be used.

Additionally, the FRA establishes classification of track quality which regulates the speed limits of the trains with Class 5, Class 6, Class 7 and Class 8 for top speeds of 90 mph (140 km/h),[30]110 mph (180 km/h), 125 mph (200 km/h) and 160 mph (260 km/h), respectively.[31] The FRA also regulates passenger train design and safety standards to ensure trains that operate at speeds of 80 mph (130 km/h) up to 125 mph (200 km/h) comply with its Tier I standard and trains that operate at speeds up to 150 mph (240 km/h) comply with its Tier II standard.[32]

Another limitation is the safety of grade crossings which limits how fast the trains can go. FRA regulations set speed limits for tracks with grade crossings as follows:[33]

• For 110 mph (180 km/h) or less: Grade crossings are permitted. States and railroads cooperate to determine the needed warning devices, including passive crossbucks, flashing lights, two quadrant gates (close only 'entering' lanes of road), long gate arms, median barriers, and various combinations. Lights and/or gates are activated by circuits wired to the track (track circuits).
• For 110 to 125 mph (180 to 200 km/h): The FRA permits crossings only if an "impenetrable barrier" blocks highway traffic when a train approaches.
• Above 125 mph (200 km/h): No crossings will be permitted.

In Europe, the limit is often 160 km/h (99 mph) over grade crossings.[34] In Sweden there is a special rule permitting 200 km/h (120 mph) if there are barriers and automatic detection of road vehicles standing on the track.[35] In Russia 250 km/h (160 mph) is permitted over grade crossings.[36]

With the above limitations, many regional transportation planners focus on rail improvements to have the top speeds up to 110 mph when proposing a new higher-speed rail service.[23]
[...]

Note 28:
"Deliverable No. 12 – Review of Impacts of HSR on the Transportation System within the Corridor" (PDF). Updated Feasibility Study of a High Speed Rail Service in the Québec City – Windsor Corridor. Ministère des Transports du Québec, Ontario Ministry of Transportation, and Transport Canada. November 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 October 2012. Retrieved 17 November 2012.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher-speed_rail

 

[crs1026]

There's also the very real possibility of a route going into service with mixed grade separated and non-separated sections. Separated could/would run at whatever speed the trainset is capable of (CTA and regs permitting) and then until the non-separated ones are replaced, 110mph (177 kph) is in force. This could shave at least a year off of RoW completion time.

This.

The most sensible way I can see of building a HxR line, especially if the Havelock route prevails, is to build to a basic standard that offers a moderately better product at the start, but with an eye to spending some further amount every year or two, to incrementally boost the line's performance spec. Which might mean starting with only some short segments of line over 95 mph, but easing a curve or two every year, and adding grade separations one or two at a time to lengthen the fast stretches. In effect that's what Amtrak has been doing in the Northeast. The trick is to have a strategy about how each incremental improvement has a positive cost/benefit ratio, and to do things in the right sequence to maximise the benefit gained from each step. Depending on the business model, that may mean an affordable but continuing year over year investment by Ottawa, and/or private investors turning back some amount of net income as reinvestment.

As to equipment choices, I have declared my position, and I'm sticking to it (and repeating it ad nauseum): the choice needs to be based on a spreadsheet analysis, and only VIA knows what variables it is using in the collumns and rows. For us spectators on the outside, the choices all look nice, but absent that analysis we don't know how they compare. We all have our favourites, but VIA can't pick the new equipment by browsing railpictures.net.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

While I very much take an interest in the subjects here, this one area where I am much less expert.

So I ask those of you who are, do you know if any of the highway ROWs were considered for any portion of a VIA HFR/HSR service (Toronto-Otttawa section) and if not, why not?

It has long struck me, and I know others, that the 401 ROW could accomodate VIA in spots (say a Coburg/Pt. Hope by-pass) before returning to the main line, producing a shorter, straighter route, with land already available.

Or alternatively, using portions of the east 407 ROW or the new 412. If VIA could get good run times out to the 412 it would have a straight Bee-line to the existing Havelock sub from there, likely allowing higher speeds.

Of course I may be completely off-base w/those assumptions which is why I ask.

 

[steveintoronto]

It's my position, and has been growing more so not only from VIA being 'left at the altar', but also in discussions with unnamed government pension plan investors, that the 'ball' is really in the hands of private initiative at this point. And that's not a bad thing, at all. Alexander may be disillusioned, but shouldn't be. VIA will eventually get what they want/need, and without having to sign a mortgage to buy the house. Private Capital *with conditions attached* will not only build it, they will most likely supply it with their own running stock, and the Gov't's (possibly plural) part will be to use legislation in their favour to assist this happening, and preferential treatment (most likely a long lease, perhaps even eventual ownership) will accrue to VIA in terms of operating this as part of their 'Corridor' service. I can foresee it being more involved than that even, with VIA spinning off "The Corridor" into a P3 arrangement.

Whatever, I can't see the where-with-all at this time from any level of government to initiate such an undertaking. It will be the opposite: Deep Pockets approaches Big Government with a proposal. And then if BigGov is wise, they will see who else can match or surpass the offer. At least one of the major equipment providers already has a massive cash pool to draw on, and if BBD rearrange themselves, they too can do it, not to mention China Inc.

Whatever, it's time for the Feds to approach this differently. The demand is there! The business case is there, but what the Gov can supply is legislative protection, which in itself takes them into a Consortium if they so choose. I believe this will work so well as for it to dent BBD's market for short-haul aircraft in the Corridor region. But there again, best for them to be part of the alternative than all of nothing.

Even the Pearson Airport initiatives realize and promote this.

 

[Urban Sky]

So I ask those of you who are, do you know if any of the highway ROWs were considered for any portion of a VIA HFR/HSR service (Toronto-Otttawa section) and if not, why not?

I can’t give you a specific answer on this particular corridor, but there are good reasons why new rail services don’t generally fit well into existing highway medians unless the highway was already designed to double as a ROW, as explained in this blog article:
https://pedestrianobservations.com/2014/09/01/putting-rail-lines-in-highway-medians/

 

[kEiThZ]

I`m starting to think that VIA should just be sold to the highest bidder.

Are you really this naive?

There is no selling VIA. A company that makes no real revenue and has aging capital assets. This really means shutting down VIA and eliminating intercity passenger rail entirely in Canada.

I had dinner with Trudeau (don't mean to name drop, sorry) in January and he seemed pretty keen on it, and was familiar with the project (but didn't commit).

The most frustrating and infuriating thing about Trudeau has been the difference between rhetoric and reality. Intercity passenger rail in the Corridor (VIA, GO RER, AMT and TKL HSR) have a real opportunity to put a dent in emissions, improve productivity and reduce traffic congestion. And yet, he pours money into "social infrastructure".

 

[kEiThZ]

Oh dear. Trying to find a silver lining in this, and maybe the remainder is actually earmarked for EAs for segments of the line? I'd love to hear the forum's thoughts on this article.

Plan for faster train travel in Ontario and Quebec sputters – only 10% of $3.3M spent

Foot dragging. Plain and simple. I can never get the reluctance of some to call a spade what it is. Like governments before them, the Trudeau government is scared of plunking down billions, possibly 10+ billion all said and done, for the benefit of Ontario and Quebec exclusively. They are scared of how that will look. And so they are stalling. They've been hoping that the CIB will take it up. And the fact that they haven't spent the money either means the CIB is not fully up and running yet, incapable of putting a funding package together for this or in the worst case scenario, thinks this project is bunk and is not interested.

They've also learned from their provincial counterparts. Just keep promising a study every election. And it's sufficient to pull in railfan votes. They'll launch the EA a few months before the election. Just watch.

 

[lenaitch]

Foot dragging. Plain and simple. I can never get the reluctance of some to call a spade what it is. Like governments before them, the Trudeau government is scared of plunking down billions, possibly 10+ billion all said and done, for the benefit of Ontario and Quebec exclusively. They are scared of how that will look. And so they are stalling. They've been hoping that the CIB will take it up. And the fact that they haven't spent the money either means the CIB is not fully up and running yet, incapable of putting a funding package together for this or in the worst case scenario, thinks this project is bunk and is not interested.

They've also learned from their provincial counterparts. Just keep promising a study every election. And it's sufficient to pull in railfan votes. They'll launch the EA a few months before the election. Just watch.

I read a quote somewhere a while back that defined Canada as a nation held together by bribes. The calculus used by politicians is not how many citizens a given expenditure will benefit or how it will help a given region grow, but how many seats it will keep/win. How many years did it take to get a year-round road to Tuktoyaktuk (and how many members argued during that period that the money should be spent in their riding)? It's the same reason the government (this or just about any other since the '50s) won't spend promised $$ on the military - there's no domestic political benefit. Studies and aspirational reports are really inexpensive.

 

[kEiThZ]

I read a quote somewhere a while back that defined Canada as a nation held together by bribes. The calculus used by politicians is not how many citizens a given expenditure will benefit or how it will help a given reason grow, but how many seats it will keep/win. How many years did it take to get a year-round road to Tuktoyaktuk (and how many members argued during that period that the money should be spent in their riding)? It's the same reason the government (this or just about any other since the '50s) won't spend promised $$ on the military - there's no domestic political benefit. Studies and aspirational reports are really inexpensive.

Having nearly two decades in the CAF and having seen 8 of 10 provinces, I fully understand this. However, this government argued that there would be more evidence based decision making. And that reducing emissions was a major priority. The first bit went out the window with their unprecedented muzzling of defence procurement staff. Was hoping the second bit might at least drive some reasonable decision making on intercity rail.

 

[steveintoronto]

With the elections of Trump in the US and Ford in Ontario (and other provinces dallying with 'populists' v 'true conservatives') it appears contrary to what the market sentiment is. Google is full of positive articles and indicators on both bus and train travel. Example: (And note this is the *US*!)

Motorcoach
Demand on the rise for intercity bus travel, study finds
Posted on January 29, 2018

After being financially hurt for several years by cheap fuel prices and a soft economy, intercity bus lines rolled into the new year with renewed momentum, find researchers at DePaul University’s Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development.

“Economic growth paved the way for new services, while luxury options and tech-oriented transformations push the sector in exciting new directions,” said Joseph Schwieterman, director of the institute and lead author of the study.

Brian Antolin, industry expert and a research affiliate at the institute, is co-author of the study. The researchers outlined trends including:

• Business-class and luxury bus services are growing to destinations that have not yet had a taste of these offerings, particularly in Florida, New England, the Northeast and Texas. These services will increasingly offer reserved seating, comparable to that on most airlines.
• Tech-oriented bus lines and startups are using crowdsourcing and dynamic scheduling to attract new markets. Services Rally Bus and Skedaddle operate only when enough travelers express a willingness to pay for a set route and time.
• Guaranteed seating and e-tickets are becoming universal on all major bus lines, with Greyhound and Peter Pan rolling out e-tickets last year.
• There is a strong push by public agencies to coordinate intercity bus and rail service. Bus lines are also making greater use of public transit terminals, resulting in the closure of many traditional intercity bus stations.

Established bus companies hustle to attract customers

More than two dozen new services became available during 2017. Several of the standby brands including BoltBus, Go Buses and Megabus launched service to several new cities, the study authors found. Greyhound Lines introduced extensive new schedules in the Northeast following the termination of its longtime agreement to coordinate schedules with Peter Pan Bus Lines. Premium services, including business-class offerings, are being rolled out in a particularly intensive way by carriers seeking to capitalize on the airport “hassle factor” and a desire to avoid driving amid worsening congestion. Five established carriers rolled out premium services, creating new travel options in many parts of the country for those who would otherwise fly, drive, or take the train.

“America’s scheduled bus lines, after hitting a rough patch, are again on the move and adopting some surprising strategies to attract new customers,” noted Schwieterman. “Competition is as brisk as ever.”

Luxury ‘private sleeping cabins’ come to the bus market
[...]

http://www.metro-magazine.com/motorcoach/news/728260/demand-on-the-rise-for-intercity-bus-travel

And if bus can do it, in the Corridor's case, (with HxR) train can do it better, and much faster and reliably! In the big picture, they should work together. With "Higher Speed Rail" from say, Ottawa to Toronto, it could even compete with air.

I think the raging 'populists' are in for one hell of a shock. Reality and the Markets are very sobering things, and Ford is about to get a lesson in both. (Hint: It isn't highways)

 

[dowlingm]

^I believe 110 mph is the threshold above which level crossings aren't acceptable to TC. If we assume that HxR requires total grade separation, the cost rises significantly. Sure, ridership and marketability might be better with 120+, but it's a different cost to revenue proposition.

Has TC ever published anything to this effect? It makes sense if you compare to the US where most 125mph grade crossings have been eliminated but TC doesn't follow US cab signal norms etc., so I would think they would draw the line at 100 if they were drawing it at all. In any case, eliminating grade crossings should be part and parcel of any serious effort to upgrade the corridor, particularly when reinstating track or building new alignments.

As for spending money in Quebec-Ontario: this is one of the structural problems with VIA - it has to appear to be as concerned with moving handfuls around rural Canada as it does thousands in central Canada. Trudeau's government could have signed a multi year deal with Wynne's to abandon separate high(er) speed efforts in favour of joint ones. Now time is trickling away, Ford is eliminating revenue streams which could pay for better transit, and VIA is refurbishing 60 year old rolling stock again. There is no visible progress with the infrastructure bank. Meanwhile, there is an NDP government in Alberta and yet no movement on Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton rail either.