VIA Rail

[kEiThZ]

My problem with this approach is that HFR has the same problems as other HSR (mega)projects: it doesn't follow an incremental approach.

If you define any large capital project as non-incremental sure. It's non-incremental. But it was never sold as an incremental project. It was pitched as cheaper project to build capacity. That last HSR study was $9-11B for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal in 2009 dollars. So a $4.5B project that reduces travel times by 20-30% and boost frequencies 20% is worthwhile.

The discussion on incremental development is what many of us are hoping for AFTER HFR IS BUILT. Given that the corridor will not be shared for substantial portions of it, there's opportunities to do incremental upgrades to boost operating speeds and capacity. Hopefully, post HFR opening, the case can be made to invest in stretches that can be straightened, double tracked, grade separated, etc.

From an infrastructure point of view, building an entirely new line between two cities requires an enormous amount of time. Peterborough to Smiths Falls is approximately 200 km as the crow flies. We can easily compare it to the Rome–Naples HSR (204.6 km), which opened in sections between December 19th, 2005, and December 13th, 2009. Work on the line officially commenced in 1994 and, leaving aside the infamous Italian bureaucracy and various technical problems, the line opened to traffic 11 years later. When it was opened to traffic, the line used provisory interconnections to the conventional network, so it took 4 more years to complete the whole project.

Assuming that enthusiastic Canadian contractors were able to build the Peterborough–Smiths Falls section in a third of that time, construction would still take 5 years with VIA still struggling on the Kingston Sub. If the contract were to be awarded on January 1st, 2021, and that won't be the case, we wouldn't see any kind of improvement whatsoever at least until early 2026. And that assuming nothing goes wrong.

Keep in mind that the purpose of the project is to restart a disused old rail corridor that has been turned into trails in some spots. So this is not exactly building a corridor from scratch. It's mostly engineering work of rejuvenating a rail bed, laying track, installing protections for crossings, etc. Also, it's not a high speed rail line, so minimal grade separations, etc. So doing this in 4-5 years as they have pledged is entirely reasonable. Imagine there was an announcement to build a GO Train line from Toronto to Ottawa, you wouldn't see that as a decade long $10B undertaking. The single track Havelock HFR proposal is closer to that, than any HSR line.

 

[ec_traindriver]

The discussion on incremental development is what many of us are hoping for AFTER HFR IS BUILT. Given that the corridor will not be shared for substantial portions of it, there's opportunities to do incremental upgrades to boost operating speeds and capacity.

Apparently, we have a different understanding of what incremental development means: if you have to build a line basically from scratch, that's an "abrupt" development. It means that it would take years to get to the result without experiencing anything in the meantime.

Keep in mind that the purpose of the project is to restart a disused old rail corridor that has been turned into trails in some spots. So this is not exactly building a corridor from scratch. It's mostly engineering work of rejuvenating a rail bed, laying track, installing protections for crossings, etc. Also, it's not a high speed rail line, so minimal grade separations, etc. So doing this in 4-5 years as they have pledged is entirely reasonable. Imagine there was an announcement to build a GO Train line from Toronto to Ottawa, you wouldn't see that as a decade long $10B undertaking.

I wouldn't be overlooking the technical difficulties of that. Sure enough, said corridor would allow only 110 mi/h operations, but the differences end there. The undertakings required to build any rail corridor are basically the same, no matter the target speed.

I have bad news if you expect to be able to clean the existing trail and put the rails back, just like that. In this case, there's almost nothing to be rejuvenated! You would literally mean to bulldoze, take away the existing rail bed, build a new one complete of drainage and the like — unless you wish the ROW to be washed out completely the moment it starts raining seriously — and only then you can think about ballast, tracks, signals...

From an engineering point of view, again, there's not much difference to an HSR project. It's just a cheaper one.

 

[robmausser]

My problem with this approach is that HFR has the same problems as other HSR (mega)projects: it doesn't follow an incremental approach.

From an infrastructure point of view, building an entirely new line between two cities requires an enormous amount of time. Peterborough to Smiths Falls is approximately 200 km as the crow flies. We can easily compare it to the Rome–Naples HSR (204.6 km), which opened in sections between December 19th, 2005, and December 13th, 2009. Work on the line officially commenced in 1994 and, leaving aside the infamous Italian bureaucracy and various technical problems, the line opened to traffic 11 years later. When it was opened to traffic, the line used provisory interconnections to the conventional network, so it took 4 more years to complete the whole project.

Assuming that enthusiastic Canadian contractors were able to build the Peterborough–Smiths Falls section in a third of that time, construction would still take 5 years with VIA still struggling on the Kingston Sub. If the contract were to be awarded on January 1st, 2021, and that won't be the case, we wouldn't see any kind of improvement whatsoever at least until early 2026. And that assuming nothing goes wrong.

No, I don't think HFR to be the best solution for passenger traffic on the Corridor.

Im curious to know what you DO think is the best solution, with the full knowledge that CN and CP are at a stalemate with allowing anymore service on their mainline corridors to the south (the current VIA corridor services) and refuse to allow priority to VIA trains, and also refuse electrification in their corridors and refuse to allow any tracks to be laid in their corridors that they are not contracted to build themselves, but with VIA paying for it, at sometimes 800% inflated cost as indicated by an Ontario Auditor General, and want to maintain exclusive rights to use these new lines with their freight trains.

 

[kEiThZ]

I beleive that if HFR happens, it will last for several decades (the next step would actually be extending it further west). When we do get to HSR, I am not sure that any of the existing routes would be optimal and a greenfield backbone would be desirable. A direct, central route between Toronto and Montreal could be chosen and feeder tracks to Kingston and Ottawa could be added as appropriate (using a combination of existing, former and greenfield routes).

Going west is the logical next step. Agreed on that. Not sure why people think a greenfield alignment is the obvious next move for transition to HSR though. If the only demand is 300 kph HSR, sure. But I think it's far more likely (and cheaper) to simply take the Havelock corridor and progressively invest in straightening, double tracking, grade separation and electrification to reach a target trip time and average speed.

Also, I don't see a case for HSR without Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal on the same corridor. I don't think any of the past HSR studies going back a few decades have attempted separating TO add TM traffic. Not sure why that would be different in the future, with more expensive infrastructure.

To the extent those plans did run along the Lakeshore or dip towards it, that was about serving Kingston. But given that Peterborough and Kingston are approaching the same size and HFR might actually make Peterborough larger, maybe the vision to serve Kingston with HSR can be left in the past.

 

[kEiThZ]

Apparently, we have a different understanding of what incremental development means: if you have to build a line basically from scratch, that's an "abrupt" development. It means that it would take years to get to the result without experiencing anything in the meantime.

Again, HFR was never sold as incremental. So I don't know why you believe this is relevant. Nobody is under the impression that a $4B half decade long build is something incremental. It's just less of a difficult sell because it's a hell of a lot cheaper than high speed rail, and slightly less challenging to implement because it's mostly using existing rail corridors, minimizing the capital and time required to acquire land and assemble a new corridor. Less challenging doesn't by any means translate to "incremental" though.

I have bad news if you expect to be able to clean the existing trail and put the rails back, just like that. In this case, there's almost nothing to be rejuvenated! You would literally mean to bulldoze, take away the existing rail bed, build a new one complete of drainage and the like — unless you wish the ROW to be washed out completely the moment it starts raining seriously — and only then you can think about ballast, tracks, signals...

I don't expect it to be easy. It's still building a rail line. I expect it to take years. But more like 4-5 years instead of a decade.

From an engineering point of view, again, there's not much difference to an HSR project. It's just a cheaper one.

I would think the grade separation and curve radii requirements of HSR impose substantially higher engineering and construction burdens. Or are you suggesting that every rail line requires a similar level of effort?

 

[kEiThZ]

Got to love how you completely ignore my arguments against biofuels, come up with one of your own and dismiss your own argument as irrelevant with a general one day in the future we might have a solution for it. It doesn't matter when the carbon was removed from the atmosphere but that we are putting copious quantities of CO2 back into the atmosphere. Were we to not burn the plant matter, and compost it instead, the carbon would be remain locked up in the ground for a very long time.

As for the argument that "using carbon stored in a plant is not an issue" because we all do it every day, there is a huge difference in magnitude. "The average human exhales about 2.3 pounds [1.04 kg] of carbon dioxide on an average day " As a comparison, a VIA Rail train from Toronto to Montreal generates 14.76 kg of CO2 per seat. That means that the train (per passenger) is emitting significantly more CO2 per passenger than the people who are ridding on it are exhaling, and that is using one of the most efficient modes of transport.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the carbon cycle and how it pertains to climate change. Whether you breathe 2 lbs or 200 lbs, is irrelevant, as long as you aren't adding net GHG to the atmosphere. Under a scenario where VIA can source 100% clean biofuels, presumably no new GHGs would be added. Though, personally, I think reducing emissions net (by moving drivers and flyers over) is a bigger issue than worrying about VIA's emissions.

Can you provide references to those figures? Also you can't compare liters of diesel to liters of gasoline as diesel is more energy dense and produces more CO2 (and other pollutants) per liter (3.00715 Kg of CO2 equivalent per Liter of diesel No. 2. vs. 2.500 Kg of CO2 equivalent per Liter of gasoline).

Here's some nice stats on emissions of typical Corridor city-pair trips themselves:

Compare the train with the car and the plane

Discover the benefits of train travel over driving, including downtown arrivals, more work time and more relaxation time.

www.viarail.ca

Using the 541 km Toronto-Montreal trip of 14.76 kg CO2, and your 3.00715 kg of CO2 per L of diesel, that works out to ~4.91L of fuel for that trip for one passenger. Or about 0.91L/100 pax-km. And that's with VIA's current fleet. The new fleet, with Tier 4, will be even more efficient.

Trains are insanely efficient. Planes are actually moderately efficient. It's gasoline and diesel cars that are inefficient. So moving those passenger kms over that should be priority. Once the trains are being compared to a substantially electrified private automotive fleet, the discussion on train emissions might be more relevant. But we're a long way from that. Easily a decade. Probably two. Which is why I argue that would be a good time to electrify. 15-20 years is usually when fleet renewals or replacements are done.

I suspect the Canadian government will pay for electrification using stimulus money and will have the CIB fund the remainder of HFR, but that is just a guess.

Might be possible. But there's zero indication of anything like that given that all public discussions we've seen has treated electrification as an optional add-on and all the talk has been of the somebody financing the whole project. Recall all that talk about some outside investor funding the whole thing. The only thing I imagine the Feds paying for is the rolling stock since the Charger options would have to be exercised sooner than later.

HFR will require the purchase new trainsets

Which is exactly why VIA secured options for 18 additional trainsets in their contract with Siemens. Would be bizarre to pay for additional options (delivery slots aren't normally free) and then not use them because they wanted to secure a whole other fleet.

and the Chargers purchased for the new fleet can be used on existing routes.

The entire Charger fleet (including the options for HFR) is meant to be employed on the Corridor routes, as per my understanding. There wasn't mention of other use cases in their qualification documents. But Urban Sky can correct me if I'm wrong. I just don't see the fleet being redeployed especially since the coaches are being configured for Corridor operations too.

One could have a counter argument that if we are planning to electrify VIA anyway, why not do it before cars have been substantially electrified and not throw away the HFR Chargers half way through their lifecycle.

Replacing locos after 15-20 years isn't that unusual. Keeping them running for 40 years is only really a Canadian thing. But also, this point of view ignores the value of not redeploying the electrification costs towards an extension. How many cars would be taken off the road over 20 years with that $2B extending HFR to Kitchener or even London, vs. emissions saved from electrification.

If you use the argument that we shouldn't do it now because the technology might be better in the future might be better, you will never do anything. The timeline for battery powered intercity trains being feasible is uncertain at the moment.

I am not arguing for a perpetual delay. I'm suggesting making use of the options VIA has and focusing the capital dollars on getting the best network they can. And saving electrification for the fleet replacement. But it certainly would be beneficial if batteries advance sufficiently in 20 years that stringing catenary the entire length might not be necessary. But even if that doesn't happen, electrification just becomes part of a larger capital project that replaces the fleet, at that point.

 

[ec_traindriver]

Im curious to know what you DO think is the best solution, with the full knowledge that CN and CP are at a stalemate with allowing anymore service on their mainline corridors to the south (the current VIA corridor services) and refuse to allow priority to VIA trains, and also refuse electrification in their corridors and refuse to allow any tracks to be laid in their corridors that they are not contracted to build themselves, but with VIA paying for it, at sometimes 800% inflated cost as indicated by an Ontario Auditor General, and want to maintain exclusive rights to use these new lines with their freight trains.

Well, my bias is strong with the European (and, partially, Australian) model of vertical separation between infrastructure owner/manager and train operators. If that seems a foreign concept, it has already been proposed by Charles P. Zlatkovich in his 1976 thesis "A proposal for the development of an interstate rail system".

I don't know how much that is going to cost, because AFAIK the idea has never been presented to the public before and there has never been a cost-benefit analysis.

This is a very basic scheme of how this works in Italy:

My understanding is that since railways tend to be natural monopolies, it would be far more beneficial if there were a single monopolist — much like the highway/road system. Following a multi-year program, the Government would take ownership of the infrastructure of the rail infrastructure in the whole corridor, and act like an "impartial referee" awarding the different competing train operator companies the respective train paths.

I'm open to questions — not so much to insults.

 

[robmausser]

Well, my bias is strong with the European (and, partially, Australian) model of vertical separation between infrastructure owner/manager and train operators. If that seems a foreign concept, it has already been proposed by Charles P. Zlatkovich in his 1976 thesis "A proposal for the development of an interstate rail system".

I don't know how much that is going to cost, because AFAIK the idea has never been presented to the public before and there has never been a cost-benefit analysis.

View attachment 290299

This is a very basic scheme of how this works in Italy:

View attachment 290300

My understanding is that since railways tend to be natural monopolies, it would be far more beneficial if there were a single monopolist — much like the highway/road system. Following a multi-year program, the Government would take ownership of the infrastructure of the rail infrastructure in the whole corridor, and act like an "impartial referee" awarding the different competing train operator companies the respective train paths.

I'm open to questions — not so much to insults.

No problem about insults because I didnt insult you anywhere so we are good on that front!

I appreciate your knowledge of European standards but i'd only say to get educated on how it works in Canada because its quite different here and not only will that not change any time soon it would be a monumental task to do so.

 

[ec_traindriver]

No problem about insults because I didnt insult you anywhere so we are good on that front!

Nothing personal, of course. That was a general remark: when I bring up that kind of reasoning elsewhere I get easily called out a communist. So, not knowing the platform I jumped on the defensive. My bad.

I appreciate your knowledge of European standards but i'd only say to get educated on how it works in Canada because its quite different here and not only will that not change any time soon it would be a monumental task to do so.

ARTC (Australia) works in the same way, and I believe that the railway industry there is somewhat similar to the Canadian one. They've started from a similar starting point in the late 1990s.

 

[Darwinkgo]

I doubt electrification will happen except for eventual HSR. Even for metrolinx's projects I bet hydrogen catches up and gets adopted instead. It has gone from pretty hypothetical (gadget bahn), to commercial pilots in the mean time.

 

[ec_traindriver]

I doubt electrification will happen except for eventual HSR. Even for metrolinx's projects I bet hydrogen catches up and gets adopted instead. It has gone from pretty hypothetical (gadget bahn), to commercial pilots in the mean time.

Hydrogen shares the same technical limitations that other fossil fuels have: it needs to be stored and, at present, the best performing multiple units have autonomies rarely exceeding 100 km. Besides, foreign hydrogen vehicles are much lighter than North American ones, therefore they have much greater efficiency.

Technically, electrification doesn't present infrastructural constraints either, as shown in this picture of the NEC.

 

[Darwinkgo]

ARTC (Australia) works in the same way, and I believe that the railway industry there is somewhat similar to the Canadian one. They've started from a similar starting point in the late 1990s.

The big issue is systems to set up the split in many countries has come as a result of crisis: railways not making enough revenue to cover the maintenance of the networks. In Australia the problem was different states having incompatible systems, plus a economic problems on their state networks.

Canada is unique in some respects. We have two railways that run to most major destinations. Both have transparent finances, and due to competition their rates are constrained from the worst of monopolistic tendencies. Even where they don't compete directly, they cannot get away with over charging since there are directly comparable alternatives.

Where only one network has developed, there are very different policy questions at play that lead you to the split of infrastructure and train operators to try to ensure as much competition as possible. This is not necessary in Canada.

 

[Darwinkgo]

Hydrogen shares the same technical limitations that other fossil fuels have: it needs to be stored and, at present, the best performing multiple units have autonomies rarely exceeding 100 km. Besides, foreign hydrogen vehicles are much lighter than North American ones, therefore they have much greater efficiency.

Technically, electrification doesn't present infrastructural constraints either, as shown in this picture of the NEC.

That is the key: at present. When embarking on a 10 year project with 50 year implications, we have to look at long terms. Even just running the electrical infrastructure over northern Ontario would be a crazy project (electrifiying corridors without populations means building out a suitable electric grid too). Our government has decided that hydrogen is where they want to play (the national hydrogen strategy). CP Rail is going for a FRA freight hydrogen demonstration. If they are even close to successful, it will destroy most electrification projects' economics.

 

[ec_traindriver]

The big issue is systems to set up the split in many countries has come as a result of crisis: railways not making enough revenue to cover the maintenance of the networks. In Australia the problem was different states having incompatible systems, plus a economic problems on their state networks.

Canada is unique in some respects. We have two railways that run to most major destinations. Both have transparent finances, and due to competition their rates are constrained from the worst of monopolistic tendencies. Even where they don't compete directly, they cannot get away with over charging since there are directly comparable alternatives.

Where only one network has developed, there are very different policy questions at play that lead you to the split of infrastructure and train operators to try to ensure as much competition as possible. This is not necessary in Canada.

It somewhat makes sense, I agree.

Personally, I wouldn't "nationalize" the entire national network, but only key corridors. Also, you have to consider that most of the freight trains now run on a network that has been shuttered in the name of their finances. How many daily freight trains run from the Windsor/Detroit to the Niagara Falls areas, needlessly congesting, for example, Bayview Junction? If there still were a direct line say, between Glencoe and Fort Erie, freight trains wouldn't pose any kind of problems on passenger trains en route from Toronto to the Southwestern Ontario area. The same could be said for the abandoned North Bay to Ottawa line(s) with trains now rerouted through the Belleville and Kingston Subs.

Does this make sense?

 

[kEiThZ]

I doubt electrification will happen except for eventual HSR. Even for metrolinx's projects I bet hydrogen catches up and gets adopted instead. It has gone from pretty hypothetical (gadget bahn), to commercial pilots in the mean time.

It's going be a long time before hydrogen can handle a 400 km trip at higher speed. And even longer before they can beat out the capabilities of BEMUs. Strap on 3-4 battery packs from a Tesla Model S to each coach and you have an EMU that can do Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal without breaking a sweat. All that's needed are battery packs that can cover Peterborough-Smiths Falls. There will be a decent enough business case to put up catenary for most of the rest of the network.