VIA Rail

[Urban Sky]

Just to let you know, I have replied to the following posts in the "High Speed Rail: London - Kitchener-Waterloo - Pearson Airport - Toronto" thread to move these "GO HSR" discussions there:

I think that 200kph GO RER (region express rail) would be quite successful on a fully electrified Kitchener route -- instead of 2 hours, you'd have 1 hour on an upgraded corridor mostly keeping speed limits (Georgetown Corridor) but upgrading some sprints to 200kph+. You'd have a great long express coast in many sections, with a few selected key-hub stops. […]

Such 200kph speeds would still be defacto high-speed GO trains if HSR was defined as 200kph minimum -- and might be the compromise outcome of the current Ontario-funded high speed rail study, that might result in an Ontario-funded high speed train, which might fall upon Metrolinx, which might be part of GO RER Phase II or III in a future decade. Still much cheaper than the 300kph options. […]

I can't think for a minute, that the cost of putting an entirely new alignment around Guelph, is at all worth the value of the much shorter, relatively straight track through Guelph. [...]

The problem for the track through Guelph is the *Go Slow* order on it. It is one step away from street running, having a 1 metre concrete retaining wall each side of the (former) double track RoW with residential (and up-scale!) streets running directly parallel with houses facing the tracks.

What other option do you suggest? I lived right by those tracks in two different places for a total of two years. You could talk to the GO passengers with sign-language as they crawled past, and the upper deck ones especially as I sat in the loo looking out the window, and they looked in. It is a a *very real* bottle-neck. I guess you could just buy them all up and rip them down, but you still have the litany of grade crossings. Take a look at the map. Brampton is also another bottleneck, albeit I'm unaware of any other 'Go Slow' orders along that corridor like Guelph's.

[...]

"Paul Langan, of the rail advocacy group High Speed Rail Canada, said it will be difficult to solve the problem of having to slow down in Guelph on the high-speed line.

But he said the province should make improvements to the existing lines to make GO trains more reliable and faster on the Toronto route.

"Who would complain, for instance, even if you could get into Toronto in an hour or an hour and a half? You're not going to drive there in an hour unless it's Sunday morning," he said.

"Let's get GO running frequently and reduce time to get into Toronto, that's the key."" [...]

http://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/5233025-high-speed-rail-line-likely-to-skip-guelph-report/[/QUOTE]

[...] Ironically I was looking at the trackbed just yesterday, walking through there, wondering if they planned to move the present track over, or lay heavier rail with concrete ties. There's no sign though of the re-asphalting at the many grade level crossings taking that into account. And as much as it's rarely brought up in these forums, and perhaps I'm far more aware of this being an electronic tech, but 25kV AC running that close to adjacent residences is going to cause massive EMI problems. It's bad enough (for anyone old enough to remember AM radio in your car) with streetcar overhead 600V DC (albeit very 'dirty', huge number of spikes, hash and chatter) as to the consequences for near-by receivers, so running that stretch electrified is in itself, hugely problematic, not to mention it's not walled or fenced off, so anyone can wander across the tracks, or walk down them as I used to do with the dogs. There's so many level crossings securing it is nigh impossible.

[...] I disagree with aspects of this "report" not the least that it's a pipe dream, but the latest VIA proposal, done in conjunction with GO, is very sane [...]

[...] I'm not discounting past studies. Just saying that VIA HFR proposal was specific to Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. And I've seen no evidence yet that VIA is interested in this Toronto-Kitchener-London proposal. Indeed, we could end up in a situation where TKL becomes entirely a GO HSR commuter operation. And VIA decides to take southern route through Mississauga and Hamilton onto London and Windsor, with through service to Ottawa and Montreal. [...]

Indeed, we could end up in a situation where TKL becomes entirely a GO HSR commuter operation. And VIA decides to take southern route through Mississauga and Hamilton onto London and Windsor, with through service to Ottawa and Montreal.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Okay so I was on LinkedIn and I follow VIA Rail when I stumbled upon some links/stuff I don't think we've seen before for VIA HFR (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think there is much new info, but I had no idea VIA actually had a site dedicated to HFR.

VIA's website for HFR: http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/governance-and-reports/dedicated-tracks
And an official backgrounder: http://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/About_VIA/Backgrounder_HFT_EN_FINAL.pdf

And they have infographic:

Overview of new Corridor Fleet: http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/governance-and-reports/fleet-renewal-program

Anyways I'm glad VIA is pushing this - It's a great initiative and I hope it gets funded eventually.

 

[dowlingm]

hate seeing that "$0 subsidy" line. I guess they are trying to both pander to conservative thinkers and to head off criticism from Megabus etc.

 

[crs1026]

I'm actually very impressed with VIA taking this forward a position. Past CEO's have made speeches and so forth but always without treading on Ottawa's toes. This one will force the government to take a position eventually.

One wonders if there is in fact some support for this initiative - the timing feels a lot like giving the idea plenty of soak time in advance of the next federal election.....so that any promises made on the campaign trail have some inertia and substance behind them, and aren't forgotten afterwards.

The $0 subsidy is the right position to start from. There will be all sorts of further analyses, debates etc about whether that is a realistic business model. Better to let others do the advocating around the "fair and proper" level of subsidy. VIA takes the high road and doesn't come across as wanting a handout.

- Paul

 

[cplchanb]

Im a little bit surprised why they are still going old school with buying locomotives and carriages when they really ought to be looking at EMUs or DMUs.
If they want to remain relevant, especially if hyperloop is to come within the next decade they should invest in more current technologies rather than dinosaur concept.

 

[smallspy]

Im a little bit surprised why they are still going old school with buying locomotives and carriages when they really ought to be looking at EMUs or DMUs.

Where does it say that they are buying locos? Every presentation by the CEO and staff has been quite non-committal about the types of rolling stock that they want to purchase. And in fact, some of the monies in this most recent budget were earmarked to start the process of deciding what types of rolling stock they will try and purchase.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[cplchanb]

Where does it say that they are buying locos? Every presentation by the CEO and staff has been quite non-committal about the types of rolling stock that they want to purchase. And in fact, some of the monies in this most recent budget were earmarked to start the process of deciding what types of rolling stock they will try and purchase.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Hmm I may have misread the text from the link a few posts up but, their use of the term "engines" seems to stipulate that theyre not entirely committed to a radical new approach. Not to mention, their noncommital to going full electric (dual mode was listed) would really hamper their options if they want to "perform better and consume less energy." Then again, I could be, as with many other ppl in the forum trying to overanalyse these things.

On another note, does anyone have any general idea of what can be purchased for their stated 1 to 1.3 billion dollar budget? How much did it cost Amtrak to buy the Acela fleet and how does it compare to other countries? Lets just hope that whatever they buy, doesn't come from Bombardier Mexico......

 

[Urban Sky]

Googling to get more background and reference for my claimed "Bombardier favoured" claim, found it, will post later, but this report is stunning in detail and authority, apologies if it's already been discussed here:

[...][5.2.4 Shannonville-Newcastle Line Consolidation

The largest corridor infrastructure project would consolidate and expand the capacity of the parallel CN and CP Montreal-Toronto lines from Shannonville, just east of Belleville, to the east side of Newcastle, at the CP siding known as Lovekin. The result would be a 71-mile, passenger-only line for VIA and an adjacent, freight-only line shared by CN and CP; both would be double-tracked. This project would also allow for the elimination of CP’s route along Belleville’s waterfront, shifting the CP freight traffic to the CN corridor north of downtown and eliminating 18 grade crossings within the city limits. Combined with the triple-tracking VIA funded on the CN Kingston Subdivision as part of the 2007-2012 capital program, this project would greatly reduce freight conflicts and remove several speed restrictions. […]
http://www.transport-action.ca/dc/VIA_1-4-10_Plan_Feb2016.pdf

The report is written by Greg Gormick last year, a name most of you will be familiar with. It details almost all of the points recently discussed in this thread.

As excellent as Greg Gormick’s historic recounts of the developments of railroads anywhere in Canada are, as poor and unrealistic are his proposals and the data he attempts to back them up. The “Shannonville-Newcastle Line Consolidation” is a prime example of the fiction he produces as CN has not the slightest incentive to help its main competitor (i.e. CP) overcome their chief competitive disadvantage (i.e. the single-tracked Belleville subdivision, which restricts the capacity and thus fluidity of its freight trains between Montreal and Toronto and the West dramatically). The whole idea is based on the assumption that CN is inconvenienced by VIA, which is simply wrong since CN holds all operational controls to route VIA trains (and to restrict their number) in a way that they interfere as little as possible. The following two quotes might highlight the completely arbitrary nature of his estimates:

5.2.3 Gananoque Cutoff [Greg Gormick's VIA 1-4-10 Plan, pp.44-45]

The rejected VIAFast contained several HPR components still worthy of implementation throughout the corridor. A prime example is the construction of a 42-mile Smiths Falls- Gananoque cutoff for express trains on the Ottawa-Toronto run. […]

Construction of the Gananoque Cutoff would be subject to a full environmental assessment (EA) and it would likely require a minimum of five years for the complete approval and construction process. Based on similar projects that have been studied and costed in the U.S. recently, it would cost approximately $500 million.

5.2.5 Branford Bypass [Greg Gormick's VIA 1-4-10 Plan, p.46]

A smaller project that would have a significant impact on VIA’s competitiveness in Southwestern Ontario would be the reconstruction of CN’s 11.2-mile Branford Bypass between Lynden and Paris Junction. […]

Because rail service was abandoned on this right-of-way decades ago, reconstructing and reactivating it will be subject to an EA. It is estimated that the Branford Bypass project would cost $150 million, which would include the construction of a new, double-track bridge over the Grand River.

I don’t know in which world Greg Gormick is living, but apparently in one in which it is cheaper to build a greenfield line through geographically and environmentally challenging terrain ($500 million divided by 42 miles = $11.9 million per mile) than to rebuild a disused and largely intact ROW through flat farmland ($150 million divided by 11.2 miles = $13.4 million per mile).

[...] I didn't read past that in your ridiculously long post. If you can't distill your thoughts into something short, don't bother - I'm not reading an essay!

I certainly have my own issues with his posts, but almost three-quarters of that "Essay" was a directly quoted newspaper, which (despite his thoroughly acknowledged formatting problems on his Mac) was fairly visible as such since it started with the publishing date and headline and ended with the link, unless of course you don't even bother to skim over it. That said, I agree that it would have been better to only quote the relevant paragraphs or just post the link...

 

[nfitz]

I certainly have my own issues with his posts, but almost three-quarters of that "Essay" was a directly quoted newspaper, which (despite his thoroughly acknowledged formatting problems on his Mac) was fairly visible as such since it started with the publishing date and headline and ended with the link, unless of course you don't even bother to skim over it. That said, I agree that it would have been better to only quote the relevant paragraphs or just post the link...

Oh, a copyright violation!

No, I didn't skim closely enough to see it - and it certainly wasn't the first essay.

 

[Urban Sky]

[Edit: re-uploaded attachment]

Due to conflicts with the character limit, I am replying to the HFR-related posts separately:

Private investment doesn't mean the end of VIA Rail subsidies. Just the end of subsidies for Corridor operations. There's no way private investors will agree to profit sharing which is substantial enough that VIA won't need any subsidies anymore. […]

Private sources of funding do by no means necessitate that the private sector has any say in how the infrastructure is used and where the profits (less any applicable financing charges) are to be invested, just like the bank who granted you a mortgage has no say in how you use the house they technically still own. In any case, the federal government holds all powers to decide whether and under which financing terms HFR is going to be built.

[…] What renewal are we talking about? A $3 million study isn't renewal. […]

The $3 million is all what is needed to push this project ahead from conception stage to studying stage and demonstrates sufficient government support to signal to interested private investors that VIA Rail is not bluffing when they say that the project fits into the federal government’s strategy of significant investments into sustainable infrastructure projects…

[…] You guys are far more optimistic than me. I see can kicking and a faint hope that they can maybe attract some private sector capital for the HFR proposal. […]

I refer to the following section in the title story of the most recent issue of Railway Age (p.24):

"HOW TO FUND IT

The Corridor project is also money-ready, believes Desjardins-Siciliano, who has, over past months, pitched the project to Canada's big public pension funds, which look for safe, long-term returns. Most are already experienced investors in passenger rail. Ontario's teachers and municipal workers pension funds jointly own the United Kingdom's HS1 high-speed railway connecting London's St. Pancras Station to the Channel Tunnel. [...] Perhaps most pertinent to VIA's Corridor project is the recent investment of US$1.5 billion for 30% of Bombardier's worldwide railway business by Quebec's Caisse de dépot, which manages the province's universal pension fund. An additional side bet on VIA's Corridor railway could enhance the Caisse's Bombardier investment, should the Quebec-based company secure some of the action."

[…] But that ignores political realities. What happens if private sector capital does come, and it's for the Peterborough route and VIA will be substantially cutting back on current Corridor ops between Toronto and Ottawa/Montreal? Will that still be a viable plan?

VIA Rail has repeatedly stressed that HFR "would allow the re-design of the current frequencies operating on the shared environment to better meet regional needs for increased service" (for instance on page 3 of its 2015 Sustainable Mobility Report). Note that despite 15 frequencies are currently offered south of Brockville (6x TRTO-MTRL, 8x TRTO-OTTW and 1x TRTO-KGON), only Kingston and Brockville are effectively served by more than 6 trains per direction and day:

Okay so I was on LinkedIn and I follow VIA Rail when I stumbled upon some links/stuff I don't think we've seen before for VIA HFR (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think there is much new info, but I had no idea VIA actually had a site dedicated to HFR.

[…]

Anyways I'm glad VIA is pushing this - It's a great initiative and I hope it gets funded eventually.

Thanks for discovering this. I wasn’t aware we had already this detail of information available on our website, even though I also wish there was already more to share…

hate seeing that "$0 subsidy" line. I guess they are trying to both pander to conservative thinkers and to head off criticism from Megabus etc.

I neither share nor understand your input-focussed view on passenger rail investments. What matters to rail passengers is the improvements which are achieved on the services they are using, not how much money who invested to achieve those. And as taxpayers, we should all be happy if these improvements improve the financial self-sustainability of VIA and prove that passenger rail is by no means inevitably a money pit…

I'm actually very impressed with VIA taking this forward a position. Past CEO's have made speeches and so forth but always without treading on Ottawa's toes. This one will force the government to take a position eventually.


One wonders if there is in fact some support for this initiative - the timing feels a lot like giving the idea plenty of soak time in advance of the next federal election.....so that any promises made on the campaign trail have some inertia and substance behind them, and aren't forgotten afterwards.


The $0 subsidy is the right position to start from. There will be all sorts of further analyses, debates etc about whether that is a realistic business model. Better to let others do the advocating around the "fair and proper" level of subsidy. VIA takes the high road and doesn't come across as wanting a handout.

Exactly! Couldn't have formulated it any better...

Im a little bit surprised why they are still going old school with buying locomotives and carriages when they really ought to be looking at EMUs or DMUs.

If they want to remain relevant, especially if hyperloop is to come within the next decade they should invest in more current technologies rather than dinosaur concept.

I challenge you to list any significant number of non-HSR intercity services in Europe which use EMUs or DMUs. Apart from numerous UK franchises (e.g. Cross Country Trains, First Trans Pennine Express, Virgin West Coast), I can only think of locomotive-hauled trains, as in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany (Deutsche Bahn just received some double-decker IC2 trains from Bombardier), Switzerland (apart from the ETR 410/430 trains), Austria, Italy (apart from Frecciargento and Frecciabianca trains) and virtually everywhere in Eastern Europe…

Where does it say that they are buying locos? Every presentation by the CEO and staff has been quite non-committal about the types of rolling stock that they want to purchase. And in fact, some of the monies in this most recent budget were earmarked to start the process of deciding what types of rolling stock they will try and purchase.

I assume he saw the following section regarding the fleet renewal and over-read the words I highlighted in bold:

"COST:

Estimates for replacement of the fleet, currently composed of 160 cars and 40 locomotives are between $1 billion (a diesel fleet) and $1.3 billion (a diesel/electric dual-mode fleet).

It’s too early to determine exactly what type of equipment will make up this new fleet. There are a number of options being considered. One thing is certain: the fleet components will be tested for compliance with the industry’s highest quality standards.”

http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/governance-and-reports/fleet-renewal-program

 

[steveintoronto]

The $3 million is all what is needed to push this project ahead from conception stage to studying stage and demonstrates sufficient government support to signal to interested private investors that VIA Rail is not completely bluffing when they say that the project fits into the federal government’s strategy of significant investments into sustainable infrastructure projects

I've got to re-iterate that in the big scheme of things, cost-wise, this is an absolute pittance, and yet the *value* is enormous. This is like placing a notice in the paper or on-line. You have something of value, a study confirms that, and you're looking for investors. *Even if* (and I am somewhat skeptical) this fails, compared to all the other failed schemes that cost $Billions? This is a brilliant move. This is the only way this can work, so there's no choice but to spend the pittance and put this out there.

 

[reaperexpress]

hate seeing that "$0 subsidy" line. I guess they are trying to both pander to conservative thinkers and to head off criticism from Megabus etc.

Yeah, it's a rather compromising objective. It's rather hypocritical that rail would be held to a zero-subsidy standard when there is such massive subsidy for highways. It's not like Megabus pays for highway construction and maintenance.

I see two good options for a more level playing field:

The more government-based option: create separate organizations for Operations (operating service, buying/maintaining rolling stock) and infrastructure (rail construction/maintenance). Rail infrastructure would be funded completely by the government (like highways), while the Corridor division of the Operations organization would not be subsidized at all (like bus companies).

The more free-market option: Create a non-subsidized division of the MTO to operate the highways in the Corridor: all highway construction and maintenance costs would need to be collected through tolls rather than taxes. Higher bus and car costs would give VIA a much better shot turning enough profit to pay for their own infrastructure maintenance.

 

[crs1026]

At this stage, the $0 subsidy claim is useful because it disarms a lot of knee-jerk opposition who could prevent the project from leaving the station. Once the full business case is released, the debate gets a little more balanced and the fuller facts can emerge. I suspect the full analysis will show that there is a need for subsidy, which is fine. At that point it's a discussion about what you get for the amount spent, and some of the facts about highway subsidies can emerge.

Joe taxpayer only knows that they pay tax through the nose at the gas pump and the airport. We know it's more complicated than that, but government would never tackle subsidy equalisation head on, as any significant change would bite too many people all at once. Smaller incremental changes are happening, but not soon enough to benefit the VIA proposal.

Case study - the Toronto Airport link was always premised on a high fare, because the project couldn't be sold initially unless it was subsidy-free. When the fare flopped, nobody cared that the new lower fare would force a subsidy... once built, the link came to be seen as an asset for the city, and fares are set to maximise its use - subsidy or not.

It may be cynical - but - there is good reason to mislead a little and then beg forgiveness.

- Paul

 

[TOareaFan]

At this stage, the $0 subsidy claim is useful because it disarms a lot of knee-jerk opposition who could prevent the project from leaving the station. Once the full business case is released, the debate gets a little more balanced and the fuller facts can emerge. I suspect the full analysis will show that there is a need for subsidy, which is fine. At that point it's a discussion about what you get for the amount spent, and some of the facts about highway subsidies can emerge........

It may be cynical - but - there is good reason to mislead a little and then beg forgiveness.

- Paul

Translation: lying to the public about public expenditures is good. ?

 

[kEiThZ]

The $3 million is all what is needed to push this project ahead from conception stage to studying stage and demonstrates sufficient government support to signal to interested private investors that VIA Rail is not completely bluffing when they say that the project fits into the federal government’s strategy of significant investments into sustainable infrastructure projects…

My biggest complaint on the study has been the fact that they budgeted it for 3 years. A feasability study like this should not take more than 12-18 months. And usually, given the capex needed for something this big, you'd spend more than $3 million to do such a study. If I'm extremely generous we're talking maybe 10-12 000 hours of consulting work. That's not a lot for a project of this magnitude. And not enough to fill 3 years.

"HOW TO FUND IT

I have a distinct discomfort in having the private sector fund something like this. The private sector profit motive will simply drive up ticket costs beyond what they should be, while keeping VIA's revenues lower than then they should be. I wonder how VIA plans to achieve financial independence in that scenario.

You're right that VIA Rail fits into exactly the type of sustainablity infrastructure investment that the government was talking about before the budget. That's why I expected a sort of preliminary commitment to the project with a short 12-18 month feasability confirmation study. But they've only committed to spend on the study. And no where in their 5-year infrastructure have they mentioned serious funding for VIA. That's what left me seriously disappointed in this government.