VIA Rail

[rbt]

Just out of curiosity, how realistic is it to expect that the contracts for the consultants to do the $71 million worth of studies for HFR will be signed before the federal election in the fall?

Metrolinx and TTC can kick through a similarly sized EA/engineering type tender in a couple of months.

I'm not familiar with VIAs process but would be surprised if it didn't close by end of September.

 

[gweed123]

A substantially new ROW is something I hadn't considered; I thought the proposal was the old old O&Q ROW, with tweaks (I read it once but it has been a while).

The way I understand it, there are several FN bands in the area. They are different in that they are 'nation-to-nation' constitutional agreements. I am reminded of a ~5km 2-lane section of Hwy 400 that was stranded for several years because of protracted negotiations with a FNT. Admittedly, negotiations with CN aren't a walk in the park either.

Isn't the ROW still legally intact though? With Hwy 69/400 from what I understand there was a lot of either completely new alignment or widening of the existing ROW involved. A large section of it is part of the Trans-Canada Trail, which I would assume would be owned by some level of government, no?

 

[nfitz]

I thought the proposal was the old old O&Q ROW, with tweaks

It is ...

Isn't the ROW still legally intact though

It's mostly intact. They'd need some expropriations - but probably no show-stoppers.

I'd expect the trail folks to have a fit though ...

 

[lrt's friend]

It is ...

It's mostly intact. They'd need some expropriations - but probably no show-stoppers.

I'd expect the trail folks to have a fit though ...

The corridor will require a major improvement. Surely a trail can be built adjacent in that process.

 

[nfitz]

The corridor will require a major improvement. Surely a trail can be built adjacent in that process.

Surely ... I still expect some Nimby fits.

 

[kEiThZ]

Not every train needs to stop at every stop.

I think this comes down to if you think consistency matters on a trunk line. I do. I want to see the minor stops having the same level of service as the major stops so there is consistent scheduling across the entire line.

Dorval is a bit of a no-brainer, given how well it's used, and how slow trains are from St-Henri to Central station. But I see no reason to stop serving Casselman, Coteau, and Fallowfield.

Fallowfield is equivalent to the prosposed Eglinton or GTA East stop. Nobody has ever questioned serving Fallowfield. But Casselmand and Coteau make no sense. Casselman in particular would be better served with more commuter bus service to Ottawa. There's already commuters who drive from there. And Coteau is probably similar in that it would probably be better served by the extension of Exo services. VIA should serve Coteau on the Kingston-Montreal line in my opinion, and realign HFR to simply bypass the area out of Alexandria, switching to the more eastbound track near St-Polycarpe. Arguably, VIA might be better off moving the Ottawa-Montreal line to the M&O sub entirely using the Prescott-Russell rec trail.

A substantially new ROW is something I hadn't considered; I thought the proposal was the old old O&Q ROW, with tweaks (I read it once but it has been a while).

To be fair, the actual HFR proposal is based on the old ROW. It's my hunch that a $70 million study will scope out some alternatives.

 

[kEiThZ]

Just out of curiosity, how realistic is it to expect that the contracts for the consultants to do the $71 million worth of studies for HFR will be signed before the federal election in the fall?

I wouldn't be too optimistic. Summer time. Lots of public servants on leave. They are effectively contracting what they already quietly staffed before the announcements. More than that is debatable. This is supposed to be a joint team between VIA and CIB. How much are they up and running is debatable.

 

[nfitz]

I think this comes down to if you think consistency matters on a trunk line. I do. I want to see the minor stops having the same level of service as the major stops so there is consistent scheduling across the entire line.

Why? And gosh, where else do you see that happening?

I completely disagree with your suggestion of cutting all service to some stops where VIA will still be running trains through.

Arguably, VIA might be better off moving the Ottawa-Montreal line to the M&O sub entirely.

Why? They already own the current line, and it's dead straight in places. M&O is nice ... but going to be very expensive to put back into service.

 

[crs1026]

Two examples come to mind:

1) Between kitchener and London, there needs to be only one stop: Stratford. St. Mary's doesn't need a stop. A bus service connecting to an hourly service stopping at Stratford would do a lot more.

2) What's the need to stop at Casselman (pop.3550 ), Alexandria (pop. 10 100) and Coteaux (pop. 4600 ) between Ottawa and Montreal. Even stopping every second HFR train at Casselman and Coteaux makes no sense. A corridor like this needs the HFR to run through, stop only at Alexandria and Dorval between Montreal and Ottawa. Bus service or some kind D/EMU service originating at Alexandria to Ottawa's station in the West and Dorval in the East would let them connect to large regional transport hubs. And heck, there's already commuter bus services to Ottawa from Casselman and Alexandria by 417 Bus Lines. Just need to coordinate with VIA.

It's hard to make a case for St Mary's, when Stratford is just nine miles down the road. But it would be interesting to know the ridership stats. It's also hard to believe that Allexandria-Casselman are making much money for VIA, considering the surrounding area's lack of population density.

But, it seems silly to refuse to stop HFR at smaller places in favour of a second tier of local service. That just puts a train out there in the way of HFR, and HFR will have its own track capacity issues. If those local stops add even a dozen fares to the revenue, and fill the last remaining empty seats, so much the better. However, it makes no sense to haul an empty seat from Ottawa to Coteau to fill it with a commuter for the last 40 miles to Montreal. Much depends on the ridership data and the potential demand pricing options. If the seat empties at Alexandria, but fills again at Casselman.....good business so long as the overall trip time doesn't disincent the through traffic.

A two car DMU uses just as much track time, and needs as many passing points, as a 14-car GO train.... so don't overestimate the flexibility of such wee trains. On a CTC console, they look much the same. In that vein, I have reservations about GO running anything on the Peterboro-Toronto leg on top of HFR - a very different proposition than GO studying a peak service on an empty freight-only line. Three or four Toronto-bound morning GO trains conflicting with those highly marketable, air-competing early-morning business travel slots going east to Ottawa ? Be careful what you ask for.

VIA has done a commendable job of judiciously sneaking single stops into semi-express Toronto-Ottawa and Toronto-Montreal runs, such that very few trains today are milk runs that stop everywhere, but with a decent tradeoff between keeping to a mostly express format while serving local stops. No reason that HFR can't be run the same way, to a degree. Revenue, rather than an arbitrary population cutoff, ought to be the driver.

I thought the HFR plan was to bypass Coteau altogether, by getting on CP at De Beaujeu to take the shorter route over towards Dorion?

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

I thought the HFR plan was to bypass Coteau altogether, by getting on CP at De Beaujeu to take the shorter route over towards Dorion?

I don't see anything that would preclude the occasional train sticking to the current track, if a stop in Coteau was desired.

 

[crs1026]

I don't see anything that would preclude the occasional train sticking to the current track, if a stop in Coteau was desired.

Quite feasible, yes. But the accountants will likely declare that now you are supporting the cost of that DeBeaujeu-Coteau segment from only the Coteau passengers. Better to let the Kingston-Montreal service capture that business... unless Ottawa-Coteau is the bigger market. I have no idea where Coteau passengers are coming to/from.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

Well, here's a negative view of Via's HFR:

Why VIA Rail Canada’s high frequency rail plan is a dud

 

[kEiThZ]

But, it seems silly to refuse to stop HFR at smaller places in favour of a second tier of local service. That just puts a train out there in the way of HFR, and HFR will have its own track capacity issues. If those local stops add even a dozen fares to the revenue, and fill the last remaining empty seats, so much the better. However, it makes no sense to haul an empty seat from Ottawa to Coteau to fill it with a commuter for the last 40 miles to Montreal. Much depends on the ridership data and the potential demand pricing options. If the seat empties at Alexandria, but fills again at Casselman.....good business so long as the overall trip time doesn't disincent the through traffic.

Opportunity cost. Every minute that a train takes longer costs you marketshare between the two major metros. So adding a dozen riders in Casselman could well cost you more than that between Ottawa and Montreal. And every stops adds about 4-6 minutes. But worthwhile for towns of a few thousand. It's for that reason I'd argue against VIA serving Casselman and Coteau and making Alexandria an all-stop.

Having hourly bus service running between Alexandria and Ottawa Tremblay would do a heck of a lot more for them. They get hourly commuter service and can simply go in the direction of travel to catch the next train for longer trips. Coteau should be served by the Kingston-Montreal trains.

I thought the HFR plan was to bypass Coteau altogether, by getting on CP at De Beaujeu to take the shorter route over towards Dorion?

This is exactly what I mentioned earlier. It's not the case as per VIA's diagram. But it should be. A stop in Vaudreuil or Dorion would not be a bad idea.

 

[crs1026]

Opportunity cost. Every minute that a train takes longer costs you marketshare between the two major metros. So adding a dozen riders in Casselman could well cost you more than that between Ottawa and Montreal. And every stops adds about 4-6 minutes. But worthwhile for towns of a few thousand. It's for that reason I'd argue against VIA serving Casselman and Coteau and making Alexandria an all-stop.

This is what I find so frustrating about the lack of information in the public domain around VIA's Business Case for HFR.

I can certainly see the logic of saying that HFR needs to leave Ottawa Station at a gallop, run nonstop and at a consistent 110 mph to Dorval, stop only there (with some far better shuttle to Trudeau), then run at best possible speed to Central Station, and then beyond. Intuitively that pace would capture the greatest number of high end business travellers, coax the most casual travellers out of their cars, and perhaps also capture a share of those heading to long distance/international flights at Trudeau as opposed to taking a shuttle flight from Ottawa. Fares could be set reflecting that added time saving.

From what one gleans here and elsewhere, VIA's business case says otherwise, with the emphasis being on frequency. It sounds like VIA is convinced that there is still sufficient market in less-than-rocket-paced travel - sufficient anyways to round plenty of curves at slower speed, spend a couple minutes here and there meeting opposing trains, and yes, spend that 4-6 minutes making the odd stop. That's not my most intuitive viewpoint, but one has to give credit to VIA for thinking this through. If this is the case, perhaps there is more revenue by stopping even if it impacts the most impatient segment of travellers. If those Alexandria boarders are going all the way to Windsor, then their contribution to the bottom line may more than offset the loss of revenue from potential travellers just heading to the closest airport.

I can't say one way or the other with confidence, we need some actual data and the BC to do more than trade opinions.

This is exactly what I mentioned earlier. It's not the case as per VIA's diagram. But it should be. A stop in Vaudreuil or Dorion would not be a bad idea.

IIRC this was the recommended EcoTrain routing, and it would make a lot of sense to implement it right from the start of HFR.

You made the comment a while back that if HFR does end up in the hands of investors, they might well insist on upping the game in terms of nudging HFR towards a higher performance standard, even if it takes a bit more investment. To my mind, if that's true, the best increment could be to build towards the eventual HSR blueprint. The two places that I could see doing that are along the Winchester Sub, and between Toronto and Belleville (the latter calls into question the Peterboro routing, I realise, but investors who are convinced HFR will work may see value in going that extra distance)

That, by the way, brings me to Non-sequitur #1 in the whole plan. HFR requires CP's cooperation to intrude on its prime main line from Leaside to Tapscott, and on either freight railway's cooperation to intrude from DeBeaujeu to downtown Montreal, whether by CP or CN or part of each. HSR seems to demand even more of that. Why are we so certain that VIA will get that cooperation, when just about every suggestion made on this forum about some shared track/ROW solution is shot down by the counter argument "But the railways won't agree to share"? It seems we all regularly suck and blow on that point, but again maybe VIA knows better.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

This is what I find so frustrating about the lack of information in the public domain around VIA's Business Case for HFR.

There's no information because there's no detailed study. I'm willing to bet VIA hasn't done much more than some really solid scoping study and a very basic ROME.

It's exactly why I'm so pissed at this government for squandering years doing squat all. And then right before the election they pulled the same move as their provincial counterparts. "We're totally serious about this idea. It's why we're launching this study. It's for real this time. We promise."

From what one gleans here and elsewhere, VIA's business case says otherwise, with the emphasis being on frequency. It sounds like VIA is convinced that there is still sufficient market in less-than-rocket-paced travel - sufficient anyways to round plenty of curves at slower speed, spend a couple minutes here and there meeting opposing trains, and yes, spend that 4-6 minutes making the odd stop. That's not my most intuitive viewpoint, but one has to give credit to VIA for thinking this through. If this is the case, perhaps there is more revenue by stopping even if it impacts the most impatient segment of travellers. If those Alexandria boarders are going all the way to Windsor, then their contribution to the bottom line may more than offset the loss of revenue from potential travellers just heading to the closest airport.

There's a market for an all-stop service. And @Urban Sky has done a great job explaining why frequency matters. I'm with him on that. It's the same idea as GO RER's increased frequencies.

But YDS own presentation also showed higher ridership for high speed rail. And the argument was that HFR offers the better ROI. I think refinement will get them closer to HPR. Especially if there are institutional investors involved who can take a longer view.

That, by the way, brings me to Non-sequitur #1 in the whole plan. HFR requires CP's cooperation to intrude on its prime main line from Leaside to Tapscott, and on either freight railway's cooperation to intrude from DeBeaujeu to downtown Montreal, whether by CP or CN or part of each. HSR seems to demand even more of that. Why are we so certain that VIA will get that cooperation, when just about every suggestion made on this forum about some shared track/ROW solution is shot down by the counter argument "But the railways won't agree to share"? It seems we all regularly suck and blow on that point, but again maybe VIA knows better.

Nothing is a guarantee. And they will have to work out arrangements with a CN, CP, GO and AMT. However, it's easier to come to agreements on shorter stretches, especially when you come to the table with some infrastructure money.

I think their dependence on CN is a whole other level.