VIA Rail

[lenaitch]

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

The latest corporate information from Unimin (Covia) is that they plan to close one and modenize the other (they're about 4 miles apart). As far as I know the only other significant traffic is Quaker Oats in Peterborough.

 

[nfitz]

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

Normally, with major work like this, the grand-fathering would be over. I recall that was one of the concerns with the Yellow line extension, is that it might trigger the need to add an exit at near St. Denis and St. Paul ... I think there's a preliminary study hidden somewhere of the feasibility of building a full-blown Bonsecours Metro station.

Though with the addition of the new stations at McGill and Vincent d'Indy, that does mitigrate the issue.- though it's still 3 km long. I'm not sure at what point, common-sense starts to outweigh "the rules" - particularly in a Civil Law system.

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.

Makes sense ... it's almost always technically feasible ... it's not necessarily affordable! After all, for a price, you can always simply remove the mountain. Imagine the real-estate benefits!

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?

I do wonder what CP thinks about all this ... I wonder if anyone has actually asked them yet!

 

[kEiThZ]

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.

I just don't believe this is cheap. Or reliably achievable with the way CN operates today. This requires serious planning and a commitment from CN to run their trains on a specific schedule. It also may limit the length of their trains. All of that is not something CN agrees to cheaply from where I sit.

Also, I still wonder how it'll work for service. Does VIA run an Ottawa train and a Montreal train every hour along the Lakeshore? Or do they alternate and not have hourly service? Or do they break trains as they do now at Brockville? There's a lot of issues with Lakeshore. And that's why I don't think VIA is bluffing when they say they want off.

I suspect CN’s concern may be long term control over capacity versus just not wanting to share the row.

Disagree. I think it very much is about sharing the ROW and the loss of operational flexibility that comes from that. Also, they probably (and rightly so) suspect that setting up VIA in some sort of more permanent arrangement may lead to the eventual loss of control of that ROW. So they tolerate VIA. But they aren't willing to share. VIA and the government now understand this.

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.

I'm not. I actually think the highest cost per km/mi is going to happen in the commuter segments where the case for full grade separation and segregation is sound. Build the corridor to Peterborough and GO gets another corridor to run GO trains through Scarborough and onto Peterborough. These commuter sheds are why I think they are going to be talking to Metrolinx and ARTM.

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......

The EcoTrain Report has some amazing little nuggets that let you glimpse a possible business case. First. They figured that Toronto-Montreal 200 kph HSR was $9.1 billion. And $11 billion for electrified 300 kph. Next, they said, the same tech for Quebec-Windsor was $19 billion and $21 billion respectively. This tells us certain things:

1) VIA's estimate of $2 billion for electrification was not that far off the mark.

2) If it's $9 billion in 2009 dollars for a fully grade separated 200 kph corridor for TOM, maybe $4 billion for non-segregated TOMQ with existing corridors is not all that off the mark.

3) Outside of TOM, they had $10 billion for Toronto-Windsor and Montreal-Quebec City portions.

If I had to take a totally wild guess, I am thinking they'll end up with some kind of eventual $12 billion proposal that goes all the way to London with full grade separation in the commuter sheds of Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa and then a long stretch of class 6 track from Peterborough to Smith's Falls and from Kitchener to London and possibly Montreal-QC. They'll have some kind of phasing plan. Say TOM first till Pearson. Then Montreal-QC and then Pearson-London. The transit authorities will have to build and maintain the tracks in the commuter sheds. They'll get low interest CIB loans for that build out. And then the corridor builder gets low interest loans to build out Peterborough-Smith's Falls, Mascousche-QC, Kitchener-London, with guaranteed operating rights from the transit agencies. All providing the CIB and this study survives the election. And that there is actual interest from the big pension funds to build something this big.

The only real value that the CIB provides in this circumstance is that they get to claim it's not government spending money. But providing loans to the "private sector" to build this.

 

[crs1026]

I just don't believe this is cheap. Or reliably achievable with the way CN operates today. This requires serious planning and a commitment from CN to run their trains on a specific schedule. It also may limit the length of their trains. All of that is not something CN agrees to cheaply from where I sit.

Also, I still wonder how it'll work for service. Does VIA run an Ottawa train and a Montreal train every hour along the Lakeshore? Or do they alternate and not have hourly service? Or do they break trains as they do now at Brockville? There's a lot of issues with Lakeshore. And that's why I don't think VIA is bluffing when they say they want off.

I may not have been clear - I don't see CN agreeing to a three-track, mixed use Kingston Sub as the end product, especially if it includes VIA running at higher speeds and.or under wires.

I was alluding to a separate and not operationally intermingled single track VIA line, with CN retaining (at most) the current two tracks alongside .

I don't believe that for the next 20 years, CN needs or wants a full two track line provided VIA vacates. So passing some redundant track to VIA in the short term is no loss provided a) CN maintains their long term ability to add trackage - perhaps some day they will need three tracks just for freight, but that's a couple of decades or more away - and b) there is no need for passenger and freight to mingle operationally. That creates a scenario where someone adds only enough track to give CN its desired level of capacity (with room to grow) and/or VIA connects the redundant CN track with new segments to achieve a single track line of its own.

I take your point that such a Lakeshore line would have to accommodate both Ottawa and Montreal trains, and that might mean service more than hourly, which would force VIA to build further passing capacity. That might well be the idea's undoing.

I'm extremely dubious of VIA's ability to keep any service on the CN line once they move to HFR. Even if CN would continue to give them the slots and maintain today's speed limits, they would pass the cost of this to any remaining VIA service, whose revenue would be less than today. The service would be unlikely to run in the black. I can't see investors accepting a cross subsidy between their earnings on the HFR route and the Kingston route, and I can't see Ottawa providing any subsidy at all once the HFR scheme with its private investors comes to be.

I do agree that if HFR proceeds, it would make good business sense to build beyond Class 6. If Montreal is to be served directly via Kingston, then all the issues of intermingling and CN cooperation remain at play. But if the primary route will be T-O-M, then the overall travel time has to match what's in place today, at worst, and perhaps closer to that old 3:59 aspiration. That's likely beyond what the Class 6 Peterboro-Perth scenario could deliver.

Or, VIA gets some dedicated track on the Kingston line so it does not impact either the cost or the operational end of the freight business. Maybe we end up with two routes.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm extremely dubious of VIA's ability to keep any service on the CN line once they move to HFR. Even if CN would continue to give them the slots and maintain today's speed limits, they would pass the cost of this to any remaining VIA service, whose revenue would be less than today. The service would be unlikely to run in the black. I can't see investors accepting a cross subsidy between their earnings on the HFR route and the Kingston route, and I can't see Ottawa providing any subsidy at all once the HFR scheme with its private investors comes to be.

VIA is tactfully avoiding stating the obvious. They are separating the profitable inter-metro traffic from the rest of the Lakeshore traffic. And with that will come both realignment and cuts. Whether that subsidy comes from VIA's profits or government subsidy is a different debate. What we can reasonably guess is that this service will be an substantially fewer seats, will have fewer frequencies and should cost less.

I think we'll see 8-10 trains in each direction per day. Hubbed at Kingston and with service optimized around the morning and evening rush in Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. They'll be 2-4 car multiple units of some kind (diesel, hydrogen, battery electric) with lower costs and capacity. Fewer and smaller trains means fewer and shorter passing tracks. And overall much less subsidy.

I do agree that if HFR proceeds, it would make good business sense to build beyond Class 6. If Montreal is to be served directly via Kingston, then all the issues of intermingling and CN cooperation remain at play. But if the primary route will be T-O-M, then the overall travel time has to match what's in place today, at worst, and perhaps closer to that old 3:59 aspiration. That's likely beyond what the Class 6 Peterboro-Perth scenario could deliver.

I think they could get 4 hrs to Montreal with only Class 6 track from Peterborough to Perth. Class 6 is 110 mph. Class 7 is the start of HSR at 125 mph. Going to Class 7 on the 200 km Peterborough-Perth stretch only saves 8 mins while probably adding billions due to grade separation requirements.

They need to build Class 7 or higher from the GTA to Peterborough and Ottawa to Montreal. That's the key. Building Class 7 in the extended commuter sheds offers better return. Improves commutability while speeding up Toronto-Montreal.

Consider Ottawa-Montreal. About 200 km. Class 6 to 7 saves 7-8 mins. It makes this a 1.5 hr trip with stops. Makes a trip to Dorval airport an hour long for Ottawa travelers. Effectively turns Ottawa into an exurb of Montreal.

Likewise, Peterborough to Union is about 140km. With the proper track investments, that's an hour long trip with stops.

Add it up and you're at about4 hrs from Toronto to Montreal. If they want to speed things up, this is where the option to spend on Class 8 (160 mph/257 kph) or Class 9 (220 mph/354 kph) on the Peterborough-Perth stretch really comes in. Class 8 saves 21 mins on this stretch. Class 9 saves 34 mins. Modeling demand around those two trip time reductions would inform the decision.

Or, VIA gets some dedicated track on the Kingston line so it does not impact either the cost or the operational end of the freight business. Maybe we end up with two routes.

Not sure they'd need a third track after the service cuts

 

[Urban Sky]

As to grade separations, there is already a lot of public money invested on the Kingston line in grade separations and crossing protection, and expansion rough-ins, with an eye to protecting passenger service. ... again, more than CN needs for freight only. I wonder what portion of that investment remains to be paid off. Walking away from that past public investment is a hidden cost to the Peterboro line....CN will find a way for government to write that down, in fact much of the investment may already have been paid by the taxpayer.

You seem to have no idea what a "hidden cost" is, as this term refers to a cost which is directly caused by a certain product/project, but not accounted for as such. Conversely, the triple-tracking of the Kingston Subdivision has no cost element which would otherwise be assumed by HFR. Therefore, it is a sunk cost, as the money is already spent and at a time where nobody was even thinking about HFR. Ironically, you later provided a perfect example for what a "hidden cost" would be (if the REM project was to force any future intercity passenger rail service to build a new tunnel, while the old tunnel would be perfectly sufficient if it wasn't for the REM):

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 do wonder what CP thinks about all this ... I wonder if anyone has actually asked them yet!

No, the reason why you haven't heard CP publicly complaining so far is that VIA has bribed their internet provider to block any access from the CP HQ to any news articles mentioning "High Frequency Rail" and especially those articles with the word "Havelock" in them...

I'm extremely dubious of VIA's ability to keep any service on the CN line once they move to HFR. Even if CN would continue to give them the slots and maintain today's speed limits, they would pass the cost of this to any remaining VIA service, whose revenue would be less than today. The service would be unlikely to run in the black. I can't see investors accepting a cross subsidy between their earnings on the HFR route and the Kingston route, and I can't see Ottawa providing any subsidy at all once the HFR scheme with its private investors comes to be.

Unfortunately, I can't develop on how service will be under HFR (as proposed by VIA), but why don't you take the opportunity to outline your service plan for "Paul's Lakeshore HFR proposal"? I've taken a random timetable (CN's October 1975 schedule) to create a template, which allows you to design different train services with distinctive stopping patterns and once you've filled out and posted your version, we can start calculate trip times and construct your personal "Paul's Lakeshore HFR" schedule:

Compiled with timetable data from CN's 1975-10-26 timetable
Notes: X=stop, I=does not stop, -=takes different route
This file is downloadable (and editable)

 

[nfitz]

No, the reason why you haven't heard CP publicly complaining so far is that VIA has bribed their internet provider to block any access from the CP HQ to any news articles mentioning "High Frequency Rail" and especially those articles with the word "Havelock" in them...

So a better strategy than the now-cancelled Halifax commuter rail plans!

 

[crs1026]

I think we'll see 8-10 trains in each direction per day. Hubbed at Kingston and with service optimized around the morning and evening rush in Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. They'll be 2-4 car multiple units of some kind (diesel, hydrogen, battery electric) with lower costs and capacity. Fewer and smaller trains means fewer and shorter passing tracks. And overall much less subsidy.

Eight trains a day each way for local service on the Lakeshore is a darn good service, and if that were the case one ought to be content. I'm not arguing against that end state. I'm just skeptical that this will actually be deliverable, operationally and within VIA's purse. That many trains is still a material conflict to CN's operation so speed/reliability issues would be just as they are today. If CN is fundamentally unwilling to share this corridor, this many trains doesn't mesh with their position, and once VIA has its own line it loses the "franchise" to be on CN's tracks at all.

Reportedly the Charger equipment will be delivered in fixed trainsets of 3, 5, and 7 cars. If, as you suggest, train length will be modest, I would expect that VIA would just use 3-car trains on this route. Kingston alone can fill one car eight times a day.

I think they could get 4 hrs to Montreal with only Class 6 track from Peterborough to Perth. Class 6 is 110 mph. Class 7 is the start of HSR at 125 mph. Going to Class 7 on the 200 km Peterborough-Perth stretch only saves 8 mins while probably adding billions due to grade separation requirements.

They need to build Class 7 or higher from the GTA to Peterborough and Ottawa to Montreal. That's the key. Building Class 7 in the extended commuter sheds offers better return. Improves commutability while speeding up Toronto-Montreal.

Again, if the plan looks something like this, I would be quite happy. I just wonder how closely this matches VIA's ability to deliver, within an investor-friendly envelope.

I took five minutes and counted level crossings. Tapscott Rd in Scarborough to Airport Road on the west side of Peterboro has a total of 46 level crossings in 58 miles. Television Road east of Peterboro to Hiway 30 at Havelock has 23 in 25 miles. May Street (Havelock East) to Perth has 50 in 100 miles. I skipped a few in Tweed and Sharbot Lake as one would not expect VIA to run full speed through those due to curves etc.

The further east one goes, the less likely it is that any of those crossings can be closed, because there are no alternative routes to offer reasonable detours around. Being minor or local roads, many can be bridged with fairly modest structures, just big enough to support the weight and width of a fire truck. So, if VIA is looking for a stretch where they can most cheaply grade separate, I would pick the Havelock-Perth stretch, recognizing that there will be slow zones in places where the curves just can't be eased. 58 miles of 125 in that stretch may be cheaper and easier to build than the 58 miles Tapscott-Peterboro that you suggest, much as I like your rationale.

I can't see running at Class 7 west of Peterborough if GO service is part of the equation. With HFR running hourly, a GO train making local stops can only get so far ahead before the following fast train would catch up. Especially so if GO's headway is more than hourly. It's comparable in principle to how GO needed the triple track Scarborough-Guildwood right from its inception.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

Eight trains a day each way for local service on the Lakeshore is a darn good service, and if that were the case one ought to be content. I'm not arguing against that end state. I'm just skeptical that this will actually be deliverable, operationally and within VIA's purse. That many trains is still a material conflict to CN's operation so speed/reliability issues would be just as they are today.

I'm highly skeptical. 8 a day? Probably more like what Kitchener and Sarnia see. 1 to 2 trains. 3 if they are lucky. Outside chance of 4 to 5 on the Toronto to Kingston leg. And presumably slower trains with more stops - would they bother paying to maintain the track to such high standards once the Ottawa and Montreal express trains are gone?

 

[kEiThZ]

Eight trains a day each way for local service on the Lakeshore is a darn good service, and if that were the case one ought to be content. I'm not arguing against that end state. I'm just skeptical that this will actually be deliverable, operationally and within VIA's purse. That many trains is still a material conflict to CN's operation so speed/reliability issues would be just as they are today. If CN is fundamentally unwilling to share this corridor, this many trains doesn't mesh with their position, and once VIA has its own line it loses the "franchise" to be on CN's tracks at all.

I'm highly skeptical. 8 a day? Probably more like what Kitchener and Sarnia see.

VIA has 14 departures a day today, from Union to Kingston. So 8-10 would be a significant reduction. About 30-40% reduction in traffic. It's argue this would be much easier for CN to accommodate. The shorter trains might have an impact too.

 

[kEiThZ]

Reportedly the Charger equipment will be delivered in fixed trainsets of 3, 5, and 7 cars. If, as you suggest, train length will be modest, I would expect that VIA would just use 3-car trains on this route. Kingston alone can fill one car eight times a day.

I still think if HFR happens all the Chargers will eventually end up on the HFR and rest of Canada routes while they get new DMU/BEMU trainsets for the Corridor. A single three car Nippon Sharyo DMU set (as used on UPE) can carry 170+ pax. Nine 3-car trainsets would probably be enough for Corridor East. About $120 million. Would turn Kingston into a hub.

So, if VIA is looking for a stretch where they can most cheaply grade separate, I would pick the Havelock-Perth stretch, recognizing that there will be slow zones in places where the curves just can't be eased. 58 miles of 125 in that stretch may be cheaper and easier to build than the 58 miles Tapscott-Peterboro that you suggest, much as I like your rationale.

You don't need to grade separate at all with Class 6 track. Just good signaling and track protection. So why bother spending on grade separation on stretched where even the geometry won't let you get up to speed anyway?

I figure the investment from Union to Peterborough will happen because it'll be part of GO's plan. And will probably be facilitated with a cheap CIB loan to go. Whether that lets them get up to 110 mph pulling out of their Eglinton station is another matter.

 

[nfitz]

VIA has 14 departures a day today, from Union to Kingston. So 8-10 would be a significant reduction.

Yes,

I'd be shocked if there's more than 5 from Toronto, or even that many from Ottawa and Montréal.

This is going to really suck balls for Kingston. I can't stress enough what a shitty deal this is for Kingston.

 

[kEiThZ]

Yes,

I'd be shocked if there's more than 5 from Toronto, or even that many from Ottawa and Montréal.

This is going to really suck balls for Kingston. I can't stress enough what a shitty deal this is for Kingston.

I still think it's going to be higher. Because there's a lot more commuters from Cobourg, Belleville, etc But even if it was 5 departures, if timed well, they can achieve all that Kingston, Belleville, etc residents need. I'd envision 3 departures in the morning. One in the afternoon and one in the evening. With the inverse of that schedule operating from Toronto on the return leg.

More important is rationalizing stops to improve trip times from Kingston. Can't serve both Port Hope and Cobourg. Same with Trenton and Belleville. Either these stops are served on alternate runs or cuts are made. Kingston trip times to Union vary widely from 2:12hrs to 2:53hrs. They need to improve consistency.

 

[crs1026]

I still think it's going to be higher. Because there's a lot more commuters from Cobourg, Belleville, etc But even if it was 5 departures, if timed well, they can achieve all that Kingston, Belleville, etc residents need. I'd envision 3 departures in the morning. One in the afternoon and one in the evening. With the inverse of that schedule operating from Toronto on the return leg.

More important is rationalizing stops to improve trip times from Kingston. Can't serve both Port Hope and Cobourg. Same with Trenton and Belleville. Either these stops are served on alternate runs or cuts are made. Kingston trip times to Union vary widely from 2:12hrs to 2:53hrs. They need to improve consistency.

Recognizing @UrbanSky's offer of a spreadsheet, I did a bit of noodling about timings. All of these are borne out by past timings and precedents which were used in CN days to shape the services. (@UrbanSky may know whether these are borne out by data today, but likely can't comment.)

My "bare minimum" spec, looking solely at stops in the Toronto-Kingston zone, is 7 trains:

Into Toronto - arrival times
0800ish - true commuter and/or infrequent commuters who need to be at work for the start of the business day
1000ish - Coming in for the day but didn't want/need to get up at the break of dawn for the earlier train
1200ish - midday connections to VIA westward, people coming in for the afternoon, people who don't want to wait any later in the day to travel
1530ish - intercity travellers making westward connections, people finishing business east of the city by noon
1830ish - business travellers returning after a full day out of the city, people coming into for the evening sports, theatre etc
2030ish - alternative for those who couldn't make the 1830 train but don't want to wait all evening for the next train
2245 - for those wanting as late arrival as possible in the city, connections to late trains out of Toronto (2300 was once the magic hour for last-of-day connections between trains, passenger volume used to be huge but VIA has withdrawn from this market)

out of Toronto - departure times
0630ish - travellers with early meeting commitments, departure has to be super early assuming a curfew during inbound GO peak
0900ish - first counterflow after the GO rush, people who want to arrive early but can’t or won’t get down for the 0630
1200ish - returns from early morning appointments, connections from trains west of Toronto
1545ish - business travellers finishing meetings early, alternative to the peak rush hour crowds, connections from trains west
1700 - traditional "true downtown commuter" slot
1900ish - Plan B train for commuters who worked late, casual travellers who want late day travel but arriving not in the wee hours
2315ish - return trip for evening sports and entertainment crowd, plus that 2300-hub connection

I agree that the smaller communities (Napanee, Trenton Jct, Port Hope) don’t need every train to stop. Port Hope is becoming a bedroom community, so maybe only the commuter slot to Toronto matters. At other times, people can drive or take "transit" to Cobourg. Trenton Jct seems a redundant stop considering Belleville is so close, but perhaps the data says otherwise. Napanee needs one morning and one evening train in each direction.

I see two problems with the "five is good enough" premise. One, as @nfitz points out, is that VIA has been forced to retreat west of Toronto to a pathetic anemic under-service on all lines, and I see the same combination of CN hostility, budget-cutting Ottawa hostility, and lack of VIA bargaining leverage is likely to unfold here - no matter how sincerely VIA feels otherwise, over time they will be squeezed to cut service.
The other is, why run a service that cannot be scalable to growth? The Lakeshore communities east of Toronto are all growing and the 401 is filling up. Suppose a five- or seven-train service proves successful, and there is pressure for additional service? What if the commuter peak justifies a second train, or more? What CN says it will accept now, versus what it will oppose later, may turn out to be two different stories. Look at how badly CN opposes GO on its trackage to Niagara, where there has been absolutely no growth in freight volumes over past decades and much more frequent CN/VIA service. CN is forcing GO to add its own track just to reclaim that old benchmark.

I am confident that whatever service level VIA implements to Kingston on the day HFR goes live, is all CN will ever allow thereafter. That's why this should not be underestimated. And, if one does build in the premise of growth, one quickly gets to the same conflict between pax and freight that is the problem today. So why not build more track and keep all the service on one corridor?

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

More important is rationalizing stops to improve trip times from Kingston. Can't serve both Port Hope and Cobourg. Same with Trenton and Belleville. Either these stops are served on alternate runs or cuts are made. Kingston trip times to Union vary widely from 2:12hrs to 2:53hrs. They need to improve consistency.

I'd think it would consistently become close to 3 hours. I really think you are overestimating the revenue on Kingston-only services. Go back and look at what the frequencies were in and out of Kingston in the early 1970s, when CN ran expresses that didn't stop there, and before they (and later VIA) upgraded the Kingston to Ottawa service.

It's not like they'll be maintaining a lot of that track (particularly to Ottawa) to the same track standards any more.