VIA Rail

[crs1026]

^My fear is that whenever the deal between GO and CN over GO’s expanded use of the Halton Sub is announced, it will emerge that these two parties have dealt away the corridor in a way that irrevocably shuts any possible VIA expansion out. And it will likely emerge that someone in Ottawa (perhaps not VIA, as its legal authority to sign for things is significantly constrained by its non-legislated status) has quietly agreed to that.
One can raise all sorts of legal arguments why that can’t happen, but once the concrete gets poured through Brampton, there may be logistical and structural things that make the legalities moot. Kind of like that bridge in Ottawa!
That leaves VIA either at the mercy of GO, ie Chargers following meekly behind stopping trains to Kitchener, or doing a deal with CN for more slots on the Brantford line. Or paying for the bypass itself, with Doug and Verster congratulating each other on how they finessed that.
Yes, that’s a pessimistic view of things, but there you have it.

- Paul

 

[Bureaucromancer]

I'm not immensely worried about that scenario for essentially two reasons:
First, there really aren't that many choke points that can't be remedied. Brampton is a problem in ANY scenario, and the end result is likely that VIA stops basically all trains there (and DOES have to "meekly follow" GO through THAT area). The thing is that stopping even the long distance service in Brampton isn't a terrible thing, especially with Hurontario LRT in place - even if we have to add an airport stop, Union - Pearson - Brampton - Guelph (optional) - Kitchener - London isn't an unconscionable number of stops for a service in the ~200km/h range.

Second, as much as there are attractive features of the NML, giving it ENTIRELY to GO as fare as London and running HFR on a Union - Burlington/Aldershot - Brantford - London - Windsor/Sarnia pattern (with option Woodstock and Chatham stops) is quite reasonable in it's own right. If we get electrification to Kitchener I can even see arguments that it might be preferable, with some sort of London - St Mary's - Statford - Kitchener DMU filling the gap. It doesn't create a dedicated passenger corridor, but in the areas Metrolinx or VIA don't own track I don't see major impediments to new construction (Burlington Bay may, as ever, be an issue, but in the worst case putting a line in the 403 Media from Aldershot to west of the existing junction isn't unreasonable).

 

[ssiguy2]

Contrary to what many in Toronto think, people in SWO are not interested in getting to Kitchener or even Pearson. Londoners and Windsorites want to get to Toronto Union as fast as possible and going via Kitchener won't do it.

When I talk of building a bypass, I am not talking about Brampton but rather Brantford. There is a 20 km non-used rail line that runs north of Brantford that could be easily and relatively cheaply resurrected.. The current section thru Brantford is not only very indirect but also painfully slow and a bypass would save at least 20 minutes. It would also, due to being passenger-only help to negotiate time schedules around freight. The southern route via Burlington would allow for a RER connection and hence the entire line between London and Union could be a very short one-stop one. The route is also far more direct than going via Kitchener much like taking the 403 to Toronto is more so than taking the 401.

Kitchener is already getting half hourly service to Toronto and increasingly many of those will be express much like is current offered on the Lakeshore East line to Oshawa. It's London/Windsor that should be the priority for faster and more reliable rail service to Union and the southern line offers that and creates faster and more express service to Detroit and Chicago.

 

[crs1026]

^The Brantford route is not wrong in itself, it’s just a complete reversal to the premise that is HFR’s selling point east of Toronto: separation from freight. And it won’t enable frequency.

The Bayview-Copetown segment is a real choke point, worse than Brampton due to gradient, and thus the time that each westbound freight occupies one track. Westbound trains go up that grade fairly slowly and stalls on the hill do happen. CN will be very protective of its capacity on that route generally but in that zone especially,

I would be happy with a 2-hourly service west of Toronto, but you won’t see that on the Brantford line without triple tracking parts.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

You are not going to get frequent services through (or by-passing) Brantford. The line through Kitchener is only 195 km, compared to the 185 km through London. Service time should be similar for HFR service.

 

[MisterF]

People in SW Ontario aren't interested in going to Pearson? Did I just read that right? Oh ssiguy, never change. ?

People in London might not like hearing it, but the main purpose of the HSR plan was to connect Toronto and Pearson to Kitchener-Waterloo. London was just an add-on. Improving the Brantford route would not only be problematic at best, it would be missing the point entirely.

 

[kEiThZ]

You are not going to get frequent services through (or by-passing) Brantford. The line through Kitchener is only 195 km, compared to the 185 km through London. Service time should be similar for HFR service.

Any sources for the distance? I believe you. Just surprised they are that close. If it's a 10km difference, skipping Pearson and Waterloo would truly be monumentally stupid.

People in SW Ontario aren't interested in going to Pearson? Did I just read that right? Oh ssiguy, never change. ?

People in London might not like hearing it, but the main purpose of the HSR plan was to connect Toronto and Pearson to Kitchener-Waterloo. London was just an add-on. Improving the Brantford route would not only be problematic at best, it would be missing the point entirely.

Exactly. Pearson is planning an $11 billion transit hub. Any rail line going west, skipping that hub would be monumentally stupid (repeated for emphasis).

Not going to happen. If only because every planner will see how much value there is stopping at Pearson, from both the East and the West. Anybody from Peterborough, KWC or London would take HFR to catch a flight. Not to mention tech CEOs will seriously tongue lash any minister who decides to skip KWC and Pearson.

Also, I don't see how ridership from London itself would be higher if Pearson and Waterloo were skipped.

 

[Urban Sky]

I'm not immensely worried about that scenario for essentially two reasons:
First, there really aren't that many choke points that can't be remedied. Brampton is a problem in ANY scenario, and the end result is likely that VIA stops basically all trains there (and DOES have to "meekly follow" GO through THAT area). The thing is that stopping even the long distance service in Brampton isn't a terrible thing, especially with Hurontario LRT in place - even if we have to add an airport stop, Union - Pearson - Brampton - Guelph (optional) - Kitchener - London isn't an unconscionable number of stops for a service in the ~200km/h range.

IIRC, Brampton alone has a population of close to a million, which would earn it a frequent stop on almost any passenger rail service anywhere in the world...

Second, as much as there are attractive features of the NML, giving it ENTIRELY to GO as fare as London and running HFR on a Union - Burlington/Aldershot - Brantford - London - Windsor/Sarnia pattern (with option Woodstock and Chatham stops) is quite reasonable in it's own right. If we get electrification to Kitchener I can even see arguments that it might be preferable, with some sort of London - St Mary's - Statford - Kitchener DMU filling the gap. It doesn't create a dedicated passenger corridor, but in the areas Metrolinx or VIA don't own track I don't see major impediments to new construction (Burlington Bay may, as ever, be an issue, but in the worst case putting a line in the 403 Media from Aldershot to west of the existing junction isn't unreasonable).

You may want to read the Auditor General report from 2016 to learn how well this exact approach (partial triple-tracking along one of CN’s main spines) worked on the Kingston Subdivision. Hint: nobody would consider reviving the Havelock Subdivision if it had yielded any tangible benefits...

Contrary to what many in Toronto think, people in SWO are not interested in getting to Kitchener or even Pearson. Londoners and Windsorites want to get to Toronto Union as fast as possible and going via Kitchener won't do it.

Contrary to what you apparently believe to have diagnosed from the comforts of living 3 time zones away from people who actually live in London or Windsor, people usually want transportation options which are faster, more frequent and more reliable than the current rail service - and that sooner rather than later. Creating a reasonably fast and frequent Toronto-Pearson-Brampton-Guelph-Kitchener-London service within the next 10 years would tick all these boxes, whereas just screaming down anything else than HSR for another 30 years clearly doesn’t.

When I talk of building a bypass, I am not talking about Brampton but rather Brantford. There is a 20 km non-used rail line that runs north of Brantford that could be easily and relatively cheaply resurrected..

It’s like “resurrecting” the Havelock Subdivision, which would be insane if there was a better and readily available ROW, which there fortunately is in this case!

The current section thru Brantford is not only very indirect but also painfully slow and a bypass would save at least 20 minutes.

And this is why I call you a troll: it took me less than 2 minutes to measure the Dundas Subdivision and the Brantford Bypass between Paris and Lynden using the Google Earth App on my phone and the Bypass shortens the route by a mere 6.2 km (from 26.7 to 20.5 km, representing a negligible 3.4% of total distance). I’ve looked up train #70 from this morning and it passed Paris Jct. at 08:33:40 and MP 14 (Lynden Rd.) at 08:57:51, which means that that “painfully slow” segment lasted for exactly 24:11 minutes and that includes a station stop of 2:40 minutes in Brantford, which means that you would need to reach an average speed of more than 300 km/h on your Bypass to achieve the time saving of 20 minutes about which you are hallucinating.

It would also, due to being passenger-only help to negotiate time schedules around freight.

The only thing that your bypass achieves is reducing the distance over which you’ll have to triple-track the Dundas Subdivision by 26.7 km, at the cost of rebuilding a disused rail corridor of 20.5 km length.

The southern route via Burlington would allow for a RER connection and hence the entire line between London and Union could be a very short one-stop one.

Indeed, if you insist on bypassing Kitchener, just to not inconvenience the people living in the 11th-largest (London) and 16th-largest CMA (Windsor) to make a short detour and stop in the 10th-largest CMA (Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge), then indeed, there is nothing worthwhile to stop between the GTHA and London...^^

The route is also far more direct than going via Kitchener much like taking the 403 to Toronto is more so than taking the 401.

Indeed, for the same reason why people prefer to drive from Toronto to Ottawa over the Trans-Canada Highway through Havelock, Madoc and Perth rather than the 401&416 Highways: because it’s so much more direct...^^

Kitchener is already getting half hourly service to Toronto and increasingly many of those will be express much like is current offered on the Lakeshore East line to Oshawa.

And all what is needed is upgrading the remaining 94 km to London and these trains can be extended to London (and beyond)!

It's London/Windsor that should be the priority for faster and more reliable rail service to Union and the southern line offers that and creates faster and more express service to Detroit and Chicago.

You have demonstrated by now that you don’t have the intellectual capacity of understanding this, but the strength of intercity rail corridors is that they can serve multiple cities at a service quality which none of the single nodes could ever justify alone...

^The Brantford route is not wrong in itself, it’s just a complete reversal to the premise that is HFR’s selling point east of Toronto: separation from freight. And it won’t enable frequency.

The Bayview-Copetown segment is a real choke point, worse than Brampton due to gradient, and thus the time that each westbound freight occupies one track. Westbound trains go up that grade fairly slowly and stalls on the hill do happen. CN will be very protective of its capacity on that route generally but in that zone especially,

I would be happy with a 2-hourly service west of Toronto, but you won’t see that on the Brantford line without triple tracking parts.

- Paul

Couldn’t have said it better!

Any sources for the distance? I believe you. Just surprised they are that close. If it's a 10km difference, skipping Pearson and Waterloo would truly be monumentally stupid.

Any VIA timetable from 2008 or earlier will show you the following distances:
QM: 272 km
MO: 187 km
MT: 539 km
OT: 446 km
KT: 254 km
TN: 132 km
TK: 101 km
TBL: 185 km
TKL: 195 km
TKS: 290 km
TBW: 359 km

 

[nfitz]

Any sources for the distance?

The VIA timetable.

Not the current one - they removed mileages a few years ago.

 

[MisterF]

Any VIA timetable from 2008 or earlier will show you the following distances:
QM: 272 km
MO: 187 km
MT: 539 km
OT: 446 km
KT: 254 km
TN: 132 km
TK: 101 km
TBL: 185 km
TKL: 195 km
TKS: 290 km
TBW: 359 km

And not that this would be part of any conventional speed rail plan, but the straight line from Kitchener to London proposed by the Liberal HSR plan would have taken another 10 km or so off the route, making it the same distance as the route through Brantford.

 

[ssiguy2]

Pearson is obviously an important destination and an essential one for people in KWC/Guelph but for Londoners not so much and for Windsor and Sarnia, not at all. London has an international airport and all of Canada and most of the US and sun vacations spots can be taken from there. Windsorites as well as Sarnia go to Detroit for major flights.

This high frequency rail stuff seems like it's not going to do much. Unless they can shave 45 minutes off from Union to London and another 20 minutes to Windsor and make it reliable, all HFR offers is more slow boats to China. Unless they greatly reduce travel times, VIA will never be considered a true transportation alternative for the masses and won't make a hoot of difference in trying to relieve some of the 401, 403/QEW congestion.

 

[robmausser]

You use the Ontario HSR plans. Build the missing link and use the North Main Line essentially. At HFR speeds it probably doesn't even need the big sections of new corridor between Kitchener and London (although assuming this has to go to Windsor to get Federal interest London to Chatham might need it).

I dont think this is even needed.

The GEXR line is now owned by Metrolinx to Kitchener. That means Freight is not an issue. Working with Metrolinx on service levels will be much easier than freight.

From Kitchener to London, the GEXR line is owned by CN, but its not a mainline by any means. Its a branch line and I think it could be relatively easily and cheaply purchased from them. CN trains could be allowed to run at night.

Any HFR or HSR plans that bypasses a relatively large population centre as Kitchener and Brampton, not to mention Pearson would be a huge fail.

 

[Urban Sky]

*Warning: don't feed the troll*

This high frequency rail stuff seems like it's not going to do much. Unless they can shave 45 minutes off from Union to London and another 20 minutes to Windsor and make it reliable, all HFR offers is more slow boats to China. Unless they greatly reduce travel times, VIA will never be considered a true transportation alternative for the masses and won't make a hoot of difference in trying to relieve some of the 401, 403/QEW congestion.

Would it be too much to ask from you to provide any rational for these numbers or did you just pull them out of your a** again like the 20 minutes which you tried to make us believe to be the travel savings for your Brantford bypass?

 

[kEiThZ]

Pearson is obviously an important destination and an essential one for people in KWC/Guelph but for Londoners not so much and for Windsor and Sarnia, not at all. London has an international airport and all of Canada and most of the US and sun vacations spots can be taken from there. Windsorites as well as Sarnia go to Detroit for major flights.

The 12 flights today (a Sunday) between YXU and YYZ on Jazz and Encore say plenty about how important Pearson is to Londoners. Show me any other city that has even a quarter of the flights from London.

London has lost all non-seasonal service to the US. Though it’s getting Las Vegas and Orlando back year-round with Swoop. But no American network carrier is servicing YXU from their hubs. Beyond that are 6 sun destinations that are seasonal. How that comes close to meeting all of London’s needs is beyond me. Do Londoners not do business in Europe or Asia? Would they not prefer to have the option of flying SkyTeam and OneWorld carriers, and not rely on AC and WestJet’s codeshares to YXU?

I would bet money that even a 2 hr train that had an hourly schedule to Pearson would see YXU’s feeder service in London cut in half or eliminated entirely. Especially if codeshares with rail and/or Pearson’s planned $11 billion transit hub with the rail arrival hall complete with integral check-in and bag drop counters happen There’s potential for the 1.5 hr train ride to Pearson to be nearly as hassle free as taking a flight from YXU. Not to mention cost. Good luck getting a one-way airfare from YXU to YYZ under $50. The AIF at YXU alone is $7. Aiport shuttles to Pearson charge ~$65. Greyhound charges ~$30 and none of those will have the speed, comfort, frequency, reliability or integration at the airport itself (again see planned hub at Pearson).

On the issue of routing via KWC, you miss a major point. London is a money loser. The HSR BCA barely made the business case to go to London via KWC. And they refused to break out the Union-KWC and KWC-London portions. Guess why? Any breakout would show that KWC was carrying London on the BCA. Run it on the southern mainline without an airport connection for London, and there may not be enough high value traffic to get past Hamilton. A handful of commuters almost exclusively from London (Hamiltonians will stick to GO) aren’t really going to make the business case for a multi-billion dollar investment. The only way London has a shot of any rail investment is by piggybacking onto the demand from KWC for a Pearson and Union connection.

This high frequency rail stuff seems like it's not going to do much. Unless they can shave 45 minutes off from Union to London and another 20 minutes to Windsor and make it reliable, all HFR offers is more slow boats to China.

If they can cut Ottawa-Montreal down to about 1.5 hrs, I would expect the same for Union-London. Maybe 1:45 hrs max. Guaranteed to be less than 2 hrs. And that will be consistent at any time of day. Looks particularly useful to me. Especially if it comes with a massive increase in frequency to > 15 trains a day like what’s propose for HFR in the East.

Unless they greatly reduce travel times, VIA will never be considered a true transportation alternative for the masses and won't make a hoot of difference in trying to relieve some of the 401, 403/QEW congestion.

I can only guess at your driving habits if you think you can get from downtown London to Union station in less than 2 hrs or Kitchener in an hour or Pearson in 1.5 hrs,, especially when you take into account traffic (only getting worse).

Your personal standard, though, is all but irrelevant. VIA fills trains to London and beyond today. If they increase service and offer shorter trip times, plenty of Londoners will take up those seats too, even if you won’t. An hourly service with great reliability is massively valuable, even if the travel time is the exactly the same as driving (which it will definitely best). Or have you forgotten that we live in Canada, where your drive is at risk for 5 months of the year?

 

[ssiguy2]

So if VIA wants the KW route, why would anyone from Windsor/London bother to take it if it isn't going to be any faster than it is now? Very few people who can take the train can't drive with either their own car or a rental. The service must not only be reliable and frequent but also offer a significant time savings over the alternative they already use in order for them to make a major shift in their transportation choices.