VIA Rail

[Urban Sky]

That only tells you when they did it (when GO service started). Not why they chose Guildwood GO.

I was talking about "clues", not definitive answers: The Wikipedia article for Guildwood Station states that the rationale for opening this station was " to provide an easy connection to Toronto Transit Commission buses along Kingston Road, as well as car parking". The comparison with the article for Eglinton station shows that both stations were opened at the same time (1967, i.e. when GO Transit started operations on the Lakeshore East line) without any mention of a pre-existing historic station (unlike Scarborough or Rouge Hill). The combination of these clues suggests that the station was chosen because of its connections to the TTC and the abundance of parking spaces. Speaking of which: 1348 parking spaces for only 363,000 GO riders (the article quotes 242,000 riders, but that figure refers to April to November 2018, not the entire year) seems to be quite an overkill, as it allows for almost every rider to arrive by car (363,000 GO riders divided by 48 weeks and 5 weekdays = 1512 riders per weekday), even if we add VIA passengers...

Gosh, 3 trains a day from Toronto to Montreal, all running in under 4 hours.

Don't worry, it never really happened:

Source: "The Railway Game" by Julius Lukasiewicz (1976, pp. 151-153)

I was considering to crop away the "Turbo Train" section when posting the April 1967 schedule, but just to make the point for how representative that schedule is: the travel time of 3:59 lasted no longer than the first deployment of the Turbo Train (one month) and was subsequently increased to 4:05 (second deployment in May 1970), 4:10 (third and final deployment in 1973) and 4:30 in 1977 (when VIA took over) before the Turbo Train was replaced with an LRC train of the same timing (oh, yes, and it never operated at more than 30-60% of the originally promised service level of 20 departures per week):

Compiled from: official CN and VIA Rail timetables

And just to make a final point about Wikipedia, you really don't need to buy an obscure forty year old book on eBay to get a pretty decent recollection of what happened:

Canadian service

[...]

The Turbo's first demonstration run in December 1968, included a large press contingent. An hour into its debut run, the Turbo collided with a truck at a highway crossing near Kingston. Despite the concerns that lightweight trains like the Turbo would be dangerous in collisions, the train remained upright and largely undamaged. Large beams just behind the nose, designed for this purpose, absorbed the impact of the collision and limited the damage to the fiberglass clamshell doors and underlying metal. The train was returned from repairs within a week. No one was killed, though this event has been cited as a main deterrent to Canada’s efforts to develop modern passenger rail.

Initial commercial service started soon after. On its first westbound run the Turbo attained 104 mph (167 km/h) 10 minutes outside of Dorval. During speed runs on April 22, 1976, it achieved 140.55 mph (226 km/h) near Gananoque, the Canadian record to this day. However, in regular passenger service the Turbotrains were limited to 95 mph (153 km/hr) in Canada because of the Canadian route's numerous grade-crossings, estimated at 240 public highway grade-crossings and 700 agricultural or private crossings between Montreal and Toronto.

Technical problems, including brake systems freezing in winter, required a suspension of service in early January 1969. Service resumed in May 1970; however, technical problems again caused the Canadian National to withdraw all Turbotrains from service again in February 1971. At this point, the CN management publicly expressed great dissatisfaction with these trainsets, with one vice-president claiming, "the trains never did measure up to the original contract and they haven't yet"; the manufacturer United Aircraft Company publicly claimed that CN suspended Turbotrain service for relatively minor technical problems. [...]

During the "downtime" CN changed their plans, and in 1971 a rebuild program began, converting the five seven-car sets to three nine-car sets. Several minor changes were added. The engine exhaust fouled the roof windows of the power car, so these were plated over, and a grill was added to the front of the engines just behind the clamshell doors. The remaining power and passenger cars were sold to Amtrak as two 4-car sets. One of those sets sideswiped a freight train on a test run in July 1973 and three of the cars were written off. The sale of the surviving Power Dome Coach car was cancelled, and it stood spare until a sister unit caught fire and burned in September 1975.

The three rebuilt 9-car sets entered service for CN in late 1973. CN ran the Turbos from Toronto-Montreal-Toronto with stops at Dorval, Kingston and Guildwoodon the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor. Original train numbers were Train 62 which left Toronto at 12:45 p.m. and arrived in Montreal at 4:44 p.m. Train 63 left Montreal at 12:45 p.m. and arrived in Toronto at 4:44 p.m. (Both were daily trains.) Train 68 left Toronto at 6:10 p.m. and arrived in Montreal at 10:14 p.m., while Train 69 left Montreal at 6:10 p.m. and arrived in Toronto at 10:14 p.m. (The evening trains did not run on Saturdays.) The trip took 3 hours and 59 minutes downtown-to-downtown on trains 62 and 63, while the evening trains were slightly slower, taking four hours and four minutes to complete the run. Turbo service was about a full hour faster than CN's previous express trains, the "Rapido". However, even the runs made by the Turbotrains in the late 1970s still fell substantially short of their intended 120 mph design speed; the fastest average speed for the Turbotrain in regular scheduled Canadian passenger service was an intermediate booking was from Kingston to Guildwood (102 minutes for the 145.2 miles between the two cities nonstop at an average speed of 85.4 mph (137.4 km/hr).[18]

By 1974, after substantial modifications of the gearbox device and pendular suspension, and reinforcement of the sound insulation, the Turbotrains finally took up untroubled service. CN operated the Turbos until 1978, when their passenger operations were taken over by Via Rail, who continued the service.

One of the three remaining trains developed an oil leak and caught fire on the afternoon run from Montréal to Toronto on May 29, 1979. It was stopped west of Morrisburg. It took some time for the fire engines to arrive as they were forced to drive on the track bed. The power car and two coaches were totally destroyed. There were no injuries, although a rapid disembarkation was needed. The train was eventually towed back to the Turcot yard in Montréal and remained there for several years, covered by tarpaulins.

The Turbo's final run was on October 31, 1982, when they were replaced by the all-Canadian LRC trainsets from Bombardier Transportation, which employed conventional diesel-electric locomotives. Although they had an early reputation for unreliability, according to CN's records, the rebuilt TurboTrains had an availability rate of over 97% for their careers with CN and Via. The LRC suffered from similar teething problems, notably with the tilt system locking the cars in a tilted position.

[...]

The first train scheduled to operate at 4 hours or less was the Metropolis in 1992.

Indeed, the only period where 3:59 was sustained for more than a few months was one train (the 5pm departure called "Metropolis" when VIA corridor trains had names) from October 1992 to May 1999 and again from May 2000 to May 2005:

Compiled from: official CN and VIA Rail timetables

 

[nfitz]

I"m amused that most of the 1990s is "a few months"

Also, I'm not seeing much difference with what they CN eventually obtained with the Turbos (4 hours and 10 minutes with two stops) and the originally proposed 3:59 with no stops. Yeah, when CN stopped running passenger service, and VIA took over, they suddenly weren't CN's priority, and the schedule got slower until the 1990s when VIA paid a hefty premium to CN to get the 3:59 service back.

It would be interesting to compare VIA payments from the 1980s, 1990s, and today. It's no secret that VIA budget hasn't gone up with inflation. Does that mean that part of the reason they aren't able to run 4-hour trains is that they aren't willing to pay the same premium that they were in the 1990s?

 

[Urban Sky]

I"m amused that most of the 1990s is "a few months"

Indeed, the only period where 3:59 was sustained for more than a few months was one train (the 5pm departure called "Metropolis" when VIA corridor trains had names) from October 1992 to May 1999 and again from May 2000 to May 2005:

The first train scheduled to operate at 4 hours or less was the Metropolis in 1992.

 

[crs1026]

I"m amused that most of the 1990s is "a few months"

Also, I'm not seeing much difference with what they CN eventually obtained with the Turbos (4 hours and 10 minutes with two stops) and the originally proposed 3:59 with no stops. Yeah, when CN stopped running passenger service, and VIA took over, they suddenly weren't CN's priority, and the schedule got slower until the 1990s when VIA paid a hefty premium to CN to get the 3:59 service back.

It would be interesting to compare VIA payments from the 1980s, 1990s, and today. It's no secret that VIA budget hasn't gone up with inflation. Does that mean that part of the reason they aren't able to run 4-hour trains is that they aren't willing to pay the same premium that they were in the 1990s?

A couple of nits to pick - if you look at timing and frequency, VIA did add service in the years immediately after its inception, and again after the introduction of the LRC’s in the early 1980’s. CN may or may not have “cared”, but they did agree to this, and their timekeeping was not egregious (there were plenty of non-CN causes for late trains back then, such as aging b/y equipment and problems with the LRC’s themselves). If CN were truly hostile or apathetic, we would not see the number of trains that we see today on that line.

The 1980/1990’s saw a lot of attention to the costing formula. Pre-VIA, CN was allowed to charge “fully allocated” costs, meaning passenger trains paid for a share of CN’s overheads, even though these would be similar had passenger trains stopped running. There was absolutely no incentive to the railways to manage these costs, they could simply pass them on to the passenger account, likely with some markup. VIA was successful in arguing that (similar to Amtrak) they should only pay the “avoidable” costs that they created....eg the CEO would have an office either way, so VIA should not have to pay a share of this cost as it did not derive from passenger. And they assumed ownership and control of some costs themselves so they could manage them more intensively - eg maintenance yards. And more of the costing became a pre-negotiated envelope, rather than a post-hoc actual cost invoice which VIA had no way to anticipate (and frequently exceeded plans).

I know this formula has changed over the years. Some years the fee was per axle, some years it was per train (one reason for the J-train format). I have read vague mentions to performance based fees. The exact formula is a closely guarded secret, but one assumes that it lies somewhere between strictly avoidable and full allocation (thus building in some incentive to CN to run the trains well - although as we have seen out west, the cost of delaying freight likely exceeds VIA’s ability to offer incentives).

The costs on the Kingston Sub are a mug’s game because we don’t know how much CN would back off on maintenance and speed quality if VIA exited - that is arguably an avoidable cost that VIA is absorbing. Nor do we know how much track CN would take out of service absent VIA....I still maintain it’s non-zero. We don’t know if CN is passing that cost to VIA.

Re @KeItHz’s comment about grade separation being needed on the Kingston line - an inexpert scan of Google Earth makes me think that much of it is already in place. Most of the major highways are grade separated. I haven’t looked at this in detail to see how many of these can squeeze a third track, but from riding VIA, many certainly are. And don’t underestimate the amount of earthmoving (rock-moving, in the Shield regions) that might be needed to bring level crossings on the Havelock to current standards - even the most obscure concession road will need proper sightlines etc. Perhaps on a pure lowest-cost comparison, Havelock wins, but on a speed-enabling, value-added basis, the Kingston line might be the more value-added. Pure speculation, I admit, so absent data we’re entitled to our views

- Paul

 

[robmausser]

If the bank is doing a real study they are looking at all this. They are comparing what CN would want for accomodation or even a corridor swap.

I'll bet Havelock still comes out looking more attractive. A lot of the case for HFR rests on a single line combining Ottawa and Montreal traffic. Hard to do on Lakeshore. Also, electrification is difficult to impossible along Lakeshore. And grade crossings....I think it's far easier to get away with protected crossings on more of the Havelock route than Lakeshore, which would need more grade-separation.

A banker looking at this is also going to be looking for flexibility. "If this service is successful, can I spend more and increase my profit?" Might be a tougher sell on the Lakeshore. But it's easier to see how portion of Havelock could be upgraded to boost productivity and profit.

Yes firstly any deal with CN would need a guarentee that they don't impede on time performance of VIA aka give VIA priority, or else we are back where we started and I dont see CN doing this.

Secondly CN has been very adamant to both Metrolinx and VIA that they dont want electrification in their corridor. Not just on their tracks but in their corridor.

 

[kEiThZ]

Yes firstly any deal with CN would need a guarentee that they don't impede on time performance of VIA aka give VIA priority, or else we are back where we started and I dont see CN doing this.

Secondly CN has been very adamant to both Metrolinx and VIA that they dont want electrification in their corridor. Not just on their tracks but in their corridor.

Yep. And this is why I think Lakeshore isn't happening. I get that some think everything is negotiable. But we are talking about a massive change in the way that CN operates. Not going to happen. And both VIA management and the politicians finally understand this after the Kingston Sub. The suits at CIB will confirm this as part of their study.

Re @KeItHz’s comment about grade separation being needed on the Kingston line - an inexpert scan of Google Earth makes me think that much of it is already in place. Most of the major highways are grade separated. I haven’t looked at this in detail to see how many of these can squeeze a third track, but from riding VIA, many certainly are. And don’t underestimate the amount of earthmoving (rock-moving, in the Shield regions) that might be needed to bring level crossings on the Havelock to current standards - even the most obscure concession road will need proper sightlines etc. Perhaps on a pure lowest-cost comparison, Havelock wins, but on a speed-enabling, value-added basis, the Kingston line might be the more value-added. Pure speculation, I admit, so absent data we’re entitled to our views

Few points.

1) It's not just a third track. With so much passing done on the other tracks, those will need a certain level of maintenance. Which I think is unlikely to happen with CN. Effectively, this would mean 4 tracking large stretches of the Lakeshore corridor, with the fourth track as a passing track for pax trains. Especially when you account for the 110 mph speed at which VIA wants to operate. I think the third track is only sufficient for the limited Lakeshore service VIA has planned with HFR moving to Havelock. Anything else requires more tracks wherever possible.

2) While there's some grade separation on a lot the Lakeshore corridor, there's still tons of little goat paths that would have to be closed off, side roads that would have to be grade separated, etc. And mostly because of the traffic volume they see. With so much of the Havelock corridor going through the Shield and bush, not farmland, a lot of the crossings can be properly barriered and that would be sufficient. It's the traffic levels on a lot of those Lakeshore corridor roads that are concerning.

3) Straightening is more likely and possible on Havelock. I still think any investor who looks at it purely from the numbers point of view is going to see a higher ROI on a corridor that is straightened without grade separations. Ostensibly, this is the perspective CIB is providing. And if they are doing this, surely, they are looking at alternatives too, like hydro corridors. Once you start taking a 20 year perspective, even an extra $3-4 billion to straighten and double track, doesn't look so onerous if the traffic is going to generate returns.

I personally think an investor led study is going to come out closer to a low-end HSR than HFR as we think of it now. Especially when they start considering integration at Pearson and further extensions to London, and some of the commuter service possibilities (to Peterborough and Trois-Rivieres). I am thinking, it's going to start looking more like Acela and we'll see the business case for some portions to run faster (> 200kph) and fully grade separated. I also think, we'll see key players get on board. CDPQ is going to jump in and get a nice cut for the use of the Mount Royal tunnel. The only real question for me, has always been whether the CIB or anybody else can put together a financing syndicate to bring the billions necessary to the table. And that is why I am pissed they took this long to even get the study started.

 

[innsertnamehere]

While I wouldn't be surprised to see parts of the line upgraded to 125mph, I can't imagine it going much higher than that given the rolling stock VIA is currently purchasing.

HFR very well may see new rolling stock again though with the Charger Locomotives & cars moving to non HFR routes.. perhaps onto upgraded Southern Ontario services or a more modern Ocean service.

If I'm especially dreamy we will see new electrified locos operating up to 250km/h in select sections for HFR with the Chargers moving around to Southern Ontario and a new Edmonton - Calgary service.

 

[nfitz]

CDPQ is going to jump in and get a nice cut for the use of the Mount Royal tunnel.

That also seems to be a potential fatal flaw in this plan - at least in terms of having through service from Ottawa to Quebec without changing stations.. REM is planning to initially run every 150 seconds at peak. I just don't see getting any VIA trains through the tunnel during that time. They aren't even planning to keep running the Repentigny train through the tunnel - so VIA seems even more unlikely.

It's almost like someone at VIA Rail is standing in Montreal with their fingers in their ears saying "I can't hear you" and not accepting the obvious!

 

[crs1026]

1) It's not just a third track. With so much passing done on the other tracks, those will need a certain level of maintenance. Which I think is unlikely to happen with CN. Effectively, this would mean 4 tracking large stretches of the Lakeshore corridor, with the fourth track as a passing track for pax trains. Especially when you account for the 110 mph speed at which VIA wants to operate. I think the third track is only sufficient for the limited Lakeshore service VIA has planned with HFR moving to Havelock. Anything else requires more tracks wherever possible.

That’s how I always assumed, and it took me a long time to get my head around to VIA’s vision - All VIA has ever proposed is single track with periodic sidings, similar to today’s line from Brockville to Ottawa. Which operates amazingly well, at today’s headways and speeds, by the way.

When you do the math - If you can keep the trains on time, and have total separation from freight, your needs for passing capacity is pretty minimal. At 110 mph and hourly headways, opposing trains meet every 30 minutes at a spacing of 55 miles apart. Twelve miles of double track (six on either side of the scheduled passing point) gives substantial cushion for minor speed variations. Taking the math further, just spacing sidings every x miles only adds a few minutes’ delay, Twelve miles in 55 is not that much double tracking, and when you consider even that incremental cost, the slower single track approach may be more cost effective. CN has deactivated sidings (still roughed in to the signalling) all along the Kingston Sub, if these were reactivated it’s possible that VIA would fit on only one of today’s tracks.

Give CN a half billion or two and let them build whatever additional third track they want for freight - I bet they would retain the earnings and squeeze the operating pattern, building precious little over what’s there now.

I suspect CN’s concern may be long term control over capacity versus just not wanting to share the row. Instead of a big capital outlay now, create an investment fund with VIA paying say $15M annually, which CN can use to periodically add track when and if traffic grows. Maybe give them a legal right of eminent domain to secure land adjoining one side of the current row. Again, they will not buy more land or build more track than they absolutely need - they simply need a scalable asset with assurance they can grow long term.

My absolute belief is that more double track is better than less, but giving VIA’s low budget single track idea the benefit of the doubt: for an apples to apples comparison, if you posit single track on the Havelock you must posit only one new track on the Kingston. But if you posit four tracks on the Kingston, you have to consider construction costs for equal double track on the Havelock. Doubling the Havelock will not be cheap, given terrain, and the more of that you assume, the closer you get to just building a new line.

2) While there's some grade separation on a lot the Lakeshore corridor, there's still tons of little goat paths that would have to be closed off, side roads that would have to be grade separated, etc. And mostly because of the traffic volume they see. With so much of the Havelock corridor going through the Shield and bush, not farmland, a lot of the crossings can be properly barriered and that would be sufficient. It's the traffic levels on a lot of those Lakeshore corridor roads that are concerning.

Some time back when we were first debating HFR I did a manual count of the remaining level crossings on the two lines and found that the Havelock line has more remaining crossings than the Kingston.

I agree, using the prevailing metrics for judging grade separation priority, the car counts for many roads on the Havelock would be way below the car counts on the Lakeshore. Fewer roads on the Havelock would hit the threshold values requiring grade separation. But don’t overlook the north-south regional roads east of Toronto in Durham and Northumberland which are getting quite busy as the GTA expands. Those are already grade separated on the Kingston but aren’t on the Havelock. And some will be four lanes before long. There will be grade separations needed either way.

3) Straightening is more likely and possible on Havelock. I still think any investor who looks at it purely from the numbers point of view is going to see a higher ROI on a corridor that is straightened without grade separations. Ostensibly, this is the perspective CIB is providing. And if they are doing this, surely, they are looking at alternatives too, like hydro corridors. Once you start taking a 20 year perspective, even an extra $3-4 billion to straighten and double track, doesn't look so onerous if the traffic is going to generate returns.

I personally think an investor led study is going to come out closer to a low-end HSR than HFR as we think of it now. Especially when they start considering integration at Pearson and further extensions to London, and some of the commuter service possibilities (to Peterborough and Trois-Rivieres). I am thinking, it's going to start looking more like Acela and we'll see the business case for some portions to run faster (> 200kph) and fully grade separated. I also think, we'll see key players get on board. CDPQ is going to jump in and get a nice cut for the use of the Mount Royal tunnel. The only real question for me, has always been whether the CIB or anybody else can put together a financing syndicate to bring the billions necessary to the table. And that is why I am pissed they took this long to even get the study started.

No argument there. I have grown to accept HFR on the premise that nothing other than a living, breathing, running-in-the-black dedicated passenger line would convince the investment community to invest. But if, as you suggest, there are already investors already to commit with an eye to the longer term, they would argue against some of VIA’s short-term compromises which would be written off (ie wasted investment) in time.
The biggest thing that these investors might want is a new alignment similar to the Ecorail report. EcoRail made considerable assumptions that HSR will share current rights of way....which brings us full circle to the statement that CN will simply not share its ROW......

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

.

It's almost like someone at VIA Rail is standing in Montreal with their fingers in their ears saying "I can't hear you" and not accepting the obvious!

It does sound like Transport Canada still isn’t convinced - this has been reported as something the added study is still exploring.

Has anyone publicly declared the projected cost of a third bore? Four miles of TBM work can’t be all that expensive- looking at TYSSE and Crosstown, the tunnelling per se is a pretty small component of total project cost. The argument would be who pays.....REM vs VIA?

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

Has anyone publicly declared the projected cost of a third bore? Four miles of TBM work can’t be all that expensive- looking at TYSSE and Crosstown, the tunnelling per se is a pretty small component of total project cost. The argument would be who pays.....REM vs VIA?

I doubt very much that the contract was written where REM would pay!

I'd think the big cost would be the emergency exits ... you couldn't avoid those these days.

 

[crs1026]

I'd think the big cost would be the emergency exits ... you couldn't avoid those these days.

Quite likely... so, absent VIA, will REM have to add those to meet current standards, or are they grandfathered to the 1912ish original design?

Not being an engineer, I would build the new bore in a way that links to the REM exits...and share that cost. Probably not structurally feasible, but it’s where I would look first.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

One thing that would have to be factors into the rehabilitation of the Havelock sub is that there are pockets of permanent and seasonal properties that use either municipal or private roads for access that cut the old ROW. Depending on the design speed, expropriation or the building of alternative feeder roads would appear to be required, as well as farm field access mostly west of Norwood. A hard-headed 'screw 'em for the greater good' approach will likely see local support melt away if they see their local economy impacted without net benefit.
Also, seeing as Havelock to Toronto is still in service, albeit at low volume, would additional track be required or CP relegated to night hours, on their own property?

 

[crs1026]

Also, seeing as Havelock to Toronto is still in service, albeit at low volume, would additional track be required or CP relegated to night hours, on their own property?

Depends a bit on whether VIA buys the line west of Havelock, or just leases it, but in either case I’m sure a condition of the deal would be CP retaining rights to run the freight they run today. Given the volume of traffic, CP would have no problem getting track time - perhaps at night. It would actually be an improvement since they would probably run much faster than they do at present - only 10-15 mph due to poor track condition. No added track required.
One hears different things about the life expectancies of the mines near Havelock - that business may or may not be around for all that much longer.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

While I wouldn't be surprised to see parts of the line upgraded to 125mph, I can't imagine it going much higher than that given the rolling stock VIA is currently purchasing.

HFR very well may see new rolling stock again though with the Charger Locomotives & cars moving to non HFR routes.. perhaps onto upgraded Southern Ontario services or a more modern Ocean service.

If I'm especially dreamy we will see new electrified locos operating up to 250km/h in select sections for HFR with the Chargers moving around to Southern Ontario and a new Edmonton - Calgary service.

There are specific stretches where speed helps. And that's the stretches where speed makes cities commutable. So Peterborough-Toronto, Ottawa-Montreal and Montreal-Quebec City. I can imagine a decent business case to fully grade-separate and possibly even double track these sections. And then have an at-grade 200 km stretch to Smith's Falls that's single tracked with passing tracks only.

250 km/h is just not needed. It doesn't achieve much over 200 kph for the commuter corridors. It's an extra 15-20 mins at best. Stop spacing has a bigger impact. And for the long Peterborough-Smith's Falls stretch is entirely irrelevant because they'll be going 160-180 kph.

That also seems to be a potential fatal flaw in this plan - at least in terms of having through service from Ottawa to Quebec without changing stations.. REM is planning to initially run every 150 seconds at peak. I just don't see getting any VIA trains through the tunnel during that time. They aren't even planning to keep running the Repentigny train through the tunnel - so VIA seems even more unlikely.

It's almost like someone at VIA Rail is standing in Montreal with their fingers in their ears saying "I can't hear you" and not accepting the obvious!

It does sound like Transport Canada still isn’t convinced - this has been reported as something the added study is still exploring.

Has anyone publicly declared the projected cost of a third bore? Four miles of TBM work can’t be all that expensive- looking at TYSSE and Crosstown, the tunnelling per se is a pretty small component of total project cost. The argument would be who pays.....REM vs VIA?

- Paul

I doubt very much that the contract was written where REM would pay!

I'd think the big cost would be the emergency exits ... you couldn't avoid those these days.

Quite likely... so, absent VIA, will REM have to add those to meet current standards, or are they grandfathered to the 1912ish original design?

Not being an engineer, I would build the new bore in a way that links to the REM exits...and share that cost. Probably not structurally feasible, but it’s where I would look first.

- Paul

There's a certain beauty in this being a more long term profit seeking outfit. CDPQ may well have an incentive to work with the HFR team to rebuild/refit/rejuvenate the Mount Royal Tunnel and bring it up to modern spec. All helped by cheap financing from the CIB.

As for HFR trains running through there, y'all could be right. Could all be a dream. But we're also talking 1-4 trains per hour max and those trains won't be stopping anywhere in the tunnel or any other station after leaving Gare Centrale. Could very well be something that REM could accomodate by skipping 1-2 runs every 15 mins. I am hoping this is less about operational challenges than cost. "I have to give up a train slot or two every 15 mins. That means I gotta lengthen my trains by a car. I am adjusting my plans. You are going to have to give me a 5% stake in compensation and a low cost loan to refit the tunnel." Something to that effect.....