VIA Rail

[ShonTron]

Russia scans luggage to enter the station and you cannot board the train without going through the station. That said, Sheremetyevo Airport has roving checkpoints which can setup in nearly any hallway and scans all passengers luggage for both directions.

China also has airport like security for most of it's HSR stations. Basically, the newer the HSR network, the more likely it is to have airport like security.

IIRC, Boston Amtrak has metal detectors and an armed guard for the first class waiting area.

China had airport-style security at its large stations that didn't yet have HSR when I was there in 2008.

I rode Eurostar three times, from London. This year had the longest lines, but the station location (in Central London) makes up for it. You still only need to show up 30-60 minutes before departure (depending on ticket class), and it's still faster than most TSA or CATSA lines.

Once in Continental Europe, there are no security checkpoints to ride TGV, ICE, Thalys, etc.

 

[cplchanb]

Russia scans luggage to enter the station and you cannot board the train without going through the station. That said, Sheremetyevo Airport has roving checkpoints which can setup in nearly any hallway and scans all passengers luggage for both directions.

China also has airport like security for most of it's HSR stations. Basically, the newer the HSR network, the more likely it is to have airport like security.

IIRC, Boston Amtrak has metal detectors and an armed guard for the first class waiting area.

Sad that we are so insecure with our security these days. in japan and taiwan you can hop on and off the shinkansen like a subway.

 

[kEiThZ]

@robmausser

You may be right about it crossing trough the mountains (although it is possible to build kilometers-long tunnels but it just costs a lot of money), but why not then make a connection on all the flat land each other province has? Plus plane tickets do cost quite a bit depending on where you are going?

Because there's no business case for it. Our Prairies are sparsely populated. Several cities can barely support mainline air service. There's no case to build any sort of real rail service anywhere out west with the exception of Calgary-Edmonton (with possible extensions a bit beyond).

 

[robmausser]

Why? Montreal is the important city in Quebec, both politically and economically. Maybe Quebec City could be some future phase, like Bordeaux in France for example, but that would be decades away.

Realistically if we ever do get HSR, even to Montreal, it'll probably be the result of incremental upgrades like Via HFR that go well beyond the area to be served by high speed trains. Quebec City would get enhanced, electrified service even if it's not high speed.

If we insist on all or nothing we'll continue to get nothing.

I think that HSR should be done in phases, with Toronto-Montreal being Phase 1, and Montreal-Quebec City being Phase 2, and Toronto-Windsor Phase 3.

 

[kEiThZ]

I think that HSR should be done in phases, with Toronto-Montreal being Phase 1, and Montreal-Quebec City being Phase 2, and Toronto-Windsor Phase 3.

If you’re going to build HSR, the highest ridership is actually in the “commute zone” if you will. This would be Toronto-London, Ottawa-Montreal and Montreal-Quebec City.

There’s an argument to be made that the first HSR line should actually be Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec City. With probably Toronto-Kitchener-London a close competitor.

This is why I hope VIA can "knit" a line together that marries basic service where necessary (Toronto-Ottawa), with speed where justified (Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec City and Toronto-Kitchener-London), by working with the respective provincial government and possibly the private sector to get there.

 

[ssiguy2]

I don't see the big advantage of HFR. To me it's like just having more slow boats to China.

The Wynne proposal was written on the back of a napkin for political gain and has no real business case behind it. VIA could greatly increase it's speeds for Lon/Win if they ran more non-stop service and they built the crucial Brantford by-pass along the once existing corridor and twinning some other tracks and key grade separations and then just using high speed diesel trains. It would require little land acquisition, could be built much faster and vastly cheaper, and would get Londoners to Union faster.

Not only would it get rid of the intermittent stops from KW to Union which of little use to SWO but is also much more direct. People in Toronto often forget that the 401 corridor from London to Toronto is not a very direct one. Lon to Tor is 200km via the 401 and 185 via the 401/403/QEW.

 

[robmausser]

I don't see the big advantage of HFR. To me it's like just having more slow boats to China.

Just to make sure you arent confused, the HFR line is proposed to be 177kmh-201kmh in speed.

So while not true highspeed (typically 300kmh) a big improvement over current trains.

Dont want you to be misinformed thinking that the trains would go as slow as the current service.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I don't see the big advantage of HFR. To me it's like just having more slow boats to China.

The Wynne proposal was written on the back of a napkin for political gain and has no real business case behind it. VIA could greatly increase it's speeds for Lon/Win if they ran more non-stop service and they built the crucial Brantford by-pass along the once existing corridor and twinning some other tracks and key grade separations and then just using high speed diesel trains. It would require little land acquisition, could be built much faster and vastly cheaper, and would get Londoners to Union faster.

Not only would it get rid of the intermittent stops from KW to Union which of little use to SWO but is also much more direct. People in Toronto often forget that the 401 corridor from London to Toronto is not a very direct one. Lon to Tor is 200km via the 401 and 185 via the 401/403/QEW.

You continuously ignore the benefits of serving KW with the KW alignment - plus the immense benefits of the pearson connection in your repeated attempts to get the London trains to continue on their existing primary routes through Brantford and Burlington.

The Brantford route is more direct - but given that you have to service both London and KWC-G with effective rail services, it makes more sense to run it on a single line rather than two separate routes. Especially since the singular line will service London-Waterloo, London-Guelph, London-Pearson trips, on top of London-Toronto.

The Brantford route additionally uses tons of freight tracks. Kitchener alignment is freight-free. A huge part of HFR is shifting VIA off of freight lines - thus the Peterborough alignment.

If HSR dies and is replaced with HFR 2.0, I fully expect it to retain the Kitchener alignment.

Also the Brantford bypass would only save about 3-4 minutes in travel times. It's not a huge difference.

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't see the big advantage of HFR. To me it's like just having more slow boats to China.

You can't be serious. Night and day difference than what is there today.

Would cut travel times to Ottawa by 40-50% and to Montreal by 30-40%. Frequency probably doubles. And most importantly reliability goes up substantially while increased asset utilization let's them lower unit costs.

VIA's value proposition is just terrible right now. Expensive. Slow. Unreliable. All that changes with HFR.

Just to make sure you arent confused, the HFR line is proposed to be 177kmh-201kmh in speed.

So while not true highspeed (typically 300kmh) a big improvement over current trains.

Dont want you to be misinformed thinking that the trains would go as slow as the current service.

Everyone keeps missing the benefits beyond speed. Higher frequencies and improved reliability goes a long way. Even if travel times stayed the same.

 

[crs1026]

Everyone keeps missing the benefits beyond speed. Higher frequencies and improved reliability goes a long way. Even if travel times stayed the same.

Well, modest improvement in travel times is possible with HFR, and we will accept that ;-)

Don't forget fares. VIA is constrained by fleet size. Frequency Toronto-Kingston is pretty damn impressive now. Imagine if we hung an extra coach on every train (25% increase in seat availability) and dropped the fares by 5-10%. Those seats would sell. Better revenue and cost recovery.

If we build HFR, the day will come when it is full and people are clamouring for better. That's when HSR may have potential. I would just like to ride HFR in my lifetime.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

Well, modest improvement in travel times is possible with HFR, and we will accept that ;-)

While anything is better than today, I think even if VIA doesn't hit their rather ambitious publicly discussed travel times, reaching average travel times competitive with driving would be huge. And if they hit less than 3 hrs doors-to-door from Union to Tremblay in Ottawa, they'd be competitive with flights, especially out of Pearson. Sometimes the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if it's Air Canada and Westjet are pushing the government to go slow on this. The Corridor remains, despite the competition, one of the most lucrative aviation markets for Canadian air carriers.

Don't forget fares. VIA is constrained by fleet size. Frequency Toronto-Kingston is pretty damn impressive now. Imagine if we hung an extra coach on every train (25% increase in seat availability) and dropped the fares by 5-10%. Those seats would sell. Better revenue and cost recovery.

I see 11 trains a day from Toronto to Montreal with 5 of them having connections on VIA's schedule for tomorrow. With HFR, I hope to see at least 14 departures a day (First departure at 6AM and every hour with last at 8PM) at launch. I am expecting something like 15 departures a day to be honest. And there will be no connections with all HFR trains going the same route. That alone should add substantial capacity.

Unit costs should be a lot lower if they have longer trains running more frequently. Would be interesting to see how that translates into fares. I am hoping they can get low enough to at least threaten, if not kill Greyhound, Coach Canada, Megabus. They've been getting away with providing rather crap service for pretty high fares for far too long.

If we build HFR, the day will come when it is full and people are clamouring for better. That's when HSR may have potential. I would just like to ride HFR in my lifetime.

Indeed. HFR alone would be a massive improvement in mobility in the Corridor. HSR is something we need to aspire to in the commuter zones first. I'd like to see people be able to commute between Ottawa and Montreal or Toronto and London.

 

[kEiThZ]

You continuously ignore the benefits of serving KW with the KW alignment - plus the immense benefits of the pearson connection in your repeated attempts to get the London trains to continue on their existing primary routes through Brantford and Burlington.

The Brantford route is more direct - but given that you have to service both London and KWC-G with effective rail services, it makes more sense to run it on a single line rather than two separate routes. Especially since the singular line will service London-Waterloo, London-Guelph, London-Pearson trips, on top of London-Toronto.

The Brantford route additionally uses tons of freight tracks. Kitchener alignment is freight-free. A huge part of HFR is shifting VIA off of freight lines - thus the Peterborough alignment.

If HSR dies and is replaced with HFR 2.0, I fully expect it to retain the Kitchener alignment.

Also the Brantford bypass would only save about 3-4 minutes in travel times. It's not a huge difference.

The airport is about to privately fund a multi-billion dollar mobility hub. It will truly be mind blowing if we build any high speed rail in the GTA and it doesn't go to or through the airport's hub.

And remember one of their stated goals is to cut flights in the corridor. London and Kingston each take up several slots a day. Can't cut them if the trains don't go to Pearson.

 

[littlewill1166]

Unit costs should be a lot lower if they have longer trains running more frequently. Would be interesting to see how that translates into fares. I am hoping they can get low enough to at least threaten, if not kill Greyhound, Coach Canada, Megabus. They've been getting away with providing rather crap service for pretty high fares for far too long.

Greyhound is a third less than VIA from London Ontario and the seats are nicer compared to the HEP equipment. If VIA didn't offer an unlimited student pass, I'd probably have to pick Greyhound. I really hope they speed up the HEP2 retrofits because I'm starting to get sick of all the rattling and shaking.

 

[kEiThZ]

Greyhound is a third less than VIA from London Ontario and the seats are nicer compared to the HEP equipment. If VIA didn't offer an unlimited student pass, I'd probably have to pick Greyhound. I really hope they speed up the HEP2 retrofits because I'm starting to get sick of all the rattling and shaking.

For what Greyhound charges I would expect some pretty nice coach buses. That is not what you get. And they have some nice monopolies in certain corridors (like Toronto-Ottawa). They won't improve until VIA puts some serious pressure on them though.

 

[littlewill1166]

For what Greyhound charges I would expect some pretty nice coach buses. That is not what you get. And they have some nice monopolies in certain corridors (like Toronto-Ottawa). They won't improve until VIA puts some serious pressure on them though.

I think $24 on greyhound is reasonable compared to VIA's $33 on Toronto-London. I'm not saying that the busses are super nice, but if I had to choose between a trip on an HEP2 or a Greyhound bus I'd pick the bus at that price. I'd pick VIA if it was an LRC or HEP1 though since the 4 seaters are nice to work in on the LRCs and the HEP1s have super soft seats which are nice to sleep in. Unfortunately, there was an equipment swap during the summer and they threw the old HEP2s on the trains I take. I don't know what greyhound busses you've taken but the ones that I have were at least on par with the HEP2s.