TOareaFan
Superstar
^I read kEiThZ' post as questioning if bus users would fill up all those HFR seats if the fare on the train was double the bus fare...not double what VIA is already charging....I could have it wrong though.
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
mdrejhon
Senior Member
Also, if it does well, then it is also theoretically possible VIA HFR could gradually expand to Euro/Japan style all-day 2-way 15-minute service eventually (alluded from Metrolinxs' Appendix A), which provides enough seats to profitably reduce fares relative to today (sub-$30 or even sub-$20 fares for 2.5 hour HFR Toronto-Ottawa) for frequent commuters needing to buy a pack of 40 trips a month for a city pair.
Kingston (if it becomes a HFR stop on some trains) is really thrust into daily commute distance very similiar to today's Hamilton-Toronto. So is Ottawa-Montreal which also becomes Hamilton-Toronto commute time. The low operating costs of EMUs combined with a fully 2-track corridor -- should easily allow EMU fleet expansion to 15-minute service over time. And they can adjust prices for legs based on commuter demand (e.g. make Kingston-Ottawa less/more expensive than Kingston-Toronto depending on commuter demand) to balance the train capacity utilization.
A 2-track fully electrified passenger-only corridor would provide the capacity for that, though you need a 4-track Lakeshore East corridor (express tracks and allstop tracks). With the CBTC signalling Metrolinx plans for RER, and sufficient federal pay-in to Metrolinx, the express Bowmanville GO trains and express VIA trains can alternate 5-to-7.5 minute headways on the express tracks. But that's a long term progression (2030s, 2040s?). USRC peak will be a toughie, but the VIA route will probably run linear rather than as a triangle, so only 4 trains needed for both Ottawa/Montreal service, out of around ~49 trainslots/hour planned for 2030s Union peak.
Kingston (if it becomes a HFR stop on some trains) is really thrust into daily commute distance very similiar to today's Hamilton-Toronto. So is Ottawa-Montreal which also becomes Hamilton-Toronto commute time. The low operating costs of EMUs combined with a fully 2-track corridor -- should easily allow EMU fleet expansion to 15-minute service over time. And they can adjust prices for legs based on commuter demand (e.g. make Kingston-Ottawa less/more expensive than Kingston-Toronto depending on commuter demand) to balance the train capacity utilization.
A 2-track fully electrified passenger-only corridor would provide the capacity for that, though you need a 4-track Lakeshore East corridor (express tracks and allstop tracks). With the CBTC signalling Metrolinx plans for RER, and sufficient federal pay-in to Metrolinx, the express Bowmanville GO trains and express VIA trains can alternate 5-to-7.5 minute headways on the express tracks. But that's a long term progression (2030s, 2040s?). USRC peak will be a toughie, but the VIA route will probably run linear rather than as a triangle, so only 4 trains needed for both Ottawa/Montreal service, out of around ~49 trainslots/hour planned for 2030s Union peak.
Last edited:
mdrejhon
Senior Member
Oh, good point.
My view, is in that case, a % of bus users will keep using the bus, and a % will shift to the train, given 2.5 hours versus 8 hours.
Bus service decreases, train increases.
It will capture a percentage -- what percentage is unknown -- it's noted one can save enough time that the same time -- 5.5 hours more working time on a minimum-wage job more than pays for a VIA HFR sale fare. It's a day you no longer need to take off.
I suspect it will pull a lot more new users formerly driving, than new users formerly using greyhound. But you will pull from both. For a solo traveller, it's already cheaper to travel by VIA Tuesday Fare than to drive a car to Ottawa if you don't need the car while in Ottawa.
If the time equation is thrown in, it becomes a no brainer for a lot more who are within convenient transit (given Ottawa/Toronto's transit projects going on). It starts to even finally economically make sense for a small family of parents who no longer both need to take a day off, and the extra worktime of 2 parents (contractors, temp, part time -- about half of workers have no vacation days/pay), the extra day of work for a low income family without a car (with work flexibility) pays for themselves AND the train fares of a couple of kids, even, to allow them an off-season Ottawa weekend vacation/relatives visit consisting of a full Saturday and practically a full Sunday. And for the richer families that already fly an Ottawa-Toronto hop, they'll now consider the train instead too with the core-to-core speed.
It won't attract everyone, but it will be quite across-the-spectrum if the price is right. Tourists, daily commuters, air travellers, business, solo, families, students, low income, high income, bus users, car drivers, etc. Some ridership attracted across the board from every market. In other words, a massive rail ridership increase, at the right pricing.
kEiThZ
Superstar
The bus is 5 hrs to Ottawa. It's 8 hrs to Montreal. Via's HFR proposal is half the time in both cases. But double the fare as per @Urban Sky. And the problem with that is that you're trying to serve two different sets of users with one system
Fare sensitive economy users don't care that much about schedule and travel time. If they did, they would not be taking the bus today.
And time sensitive business travelers don't care about paying a little bit more if their overall travel time is competitive or the time in transit is productive.
Both groups of riders require different approaches. And airlines are instructive. Airlines often have multiple frequencies on routes dominated by business travelers. And less frequencies, and tight seating on tourist runs.
In the case of HFR, I can't see VIA succeeding unless the fare to Ottawa is moderately competitive with the bus (say 50% over the bus). And with Montreal, the only way to attract business travelers is the fare and maybe some express services. It's not really that time competitive.
Fare sensitive economy users don't care that much about schedule and travel time. If they did, they would not be taking the bus today.
And time sensitive business travelers don't care about paying a little bit more if their overall travel time is competitive or the time in transit is productive.
Both groups of riders require different approaches. And airlines are instructive. Airlines often have multiple frequencies on routes dominated by business travelers. And less frequencies, and tight seating on tourist runs.
In the case of HFR, I can't see VIA succeeding unless the fare to Ottawa is moderately competitive with the bus (say 50% over the bus). And with Montreal, the only way to attract business travelers is the fare and maybe some express services. It's not really that time competitive.
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
With regards to fares, I hope Via moves to either flat rate pricing or a more sophisticated revenue management model like the airlines. The Tuesday sales are bad for VIA and not that useful for price sensitive customers.
crs1026
Senior Member
HFR may actually offer the better of both worlds. More frequent service means more seats, so the high-demand days may still offer enough seats that fares can't be jacked sky-high . One might see the highest fares for the trains that attract the most business travel (early in the morning, and right around close of business) but reasonable fares mornings or mid-afternoon.
I have been impressed by Britain's fare management practices. You can get really cheap fares - even on premier trains - if you book early enough and buy no-change tickets. The fare for the same train, bought the day before departure, or with flex rules, is much higher.
- Paul
I have been impressed by Britain's fare management practices. You can get really cheap fares - even on premier trains - if you book early enough and buy no-change tickets. The fare for the same train, bought the day before departure, or with flex rules, is much higher.
- Paul
Urban Sky
Senior Member
I cannot speak on behalf on VIA and will therefore post the response Terence Johnson has posted to my Question to Paul Langan whether he agrees with how the article quotes him and his "High Speed Rail Canada" club:
Terence Johnson said:
I'm in good faith that the safest way for me to underline this is by quoting the exact words our Communications department used when they explained VIA's position to the author in response to his article, namely: that we "believe HFR provides the foundation for HSR and is an incremental step towards it. VIA's efforts would complement a High Speed Rail link between Tor-KW-Ldn with a High Frequency Rail link enhancing current services to the towns between Tor and Ldn. That is why we are collaborating with our Ontario partners, as Metrolinx, in order to achieve progress. [...] The dedicated track proposal does not prevent, nor does it discard the possibility for HSR in Ontario."
I therefore reject your claim that VIA insists on pursuing HFR at all costs, just like I reject the article's attempt to construct a conflict between HFR and the province of Ontario's HSR plans...
Last edited:
mdrejhon
Senior Member
Coles Notes in bold, for those who do not understand what the VIA CEO said:
"believe HFR provides the foundation for HSR and is an incremental step towards it. VIA's efforts would complement a High Speed Rail link between Tor-KW-Ldn with a High Frequency Rail link enhancing current services to the towns between Tor and Ldn. That is why we are collaborating with our Ontario partners, as Metrolinx, in order to achieve progress. [...] The dedicated track proposal does not prevent, nor does it discard the possibility for HSR in Ontario."
Even for anti-VIA people, that anti-VIA article is simply garbage.
"believe HFR provides the foundation for HSR and is an incremental step towards it. VIA's efforts would complement a High Speed Rail link between Tor-KW-Ldn with a High Frequency Rail link enhancing current services to the towns between Tor and Ldn. That is why we are collaborating with our Ontario partners, as Metrolinx, in order to achieve progress. [...] The dedicated track proposal does not prevent, nor does it discard the possibility for HSR in Ontario."
Even for anti-VIA people, that anti-VIA article is simply garbage.
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
Happy to hear that. Not that I would like to see conflict. But I also know that government agencies are not beyond squabbling. But it's a happy circumstance to know VIA is open minded.
steveintoronto
Superstar
It's interesting to contrast The Toronto Star's article that I linked prior https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ew-trains-frequent-service-to-woo-riders.html with the Post-Media one in the London Free Press, http://www.lfpress.com/2016/04/15/via-angling-for-own-track-rails-against-high-speed and some others. Bruce Campion-Smith in Ottawa got it right, he was obviously at the press conference, others just made things up, to be very blunt. I accessed Langan's web site some weeks back. I didn't linger long...
I'm sure Desjardins-Siciliano is open to criticism....*where warranted* but he's been very careful to choose his words. I want to see him succeed, the question is whether it is with VIA or not.
Digging to get more background on Terry Johnson, that quote was highly telling, but Google can often give you surprising results:
Terry Johnson
This, the fourth installment of his layout videos, features Terry Johnson's Lionel postwar accessories and two scratch built projects including a lift bridge.
http://ctt.trains.com/videos/reader-videos/2010/11/terry-johnson
Close, but not the same Terry Johnson...
I'm sure Desjardins-Siciliano is open to criticism....*where warranted* but he's been very careful to choose his words. I want to see him succeed, the question is whether it is with VIA or not.
Digging to get more background on Terry Johnson, that quote was highly telling, but Google can often give you surprising results:
Terry Johnson
This, the fourth installment of his layout videos, features Terry Johnson's Lionel postwar accessories and two scratch built projects including a lift bridge.
http://ctt.trains.com/videos/reader-videos/2010/11/terry-johnson
Close, but not the same Terry Johnson...
SaugeenJunction
Senior Member
Via Rail voit grand pour Québec
http://www.lapresse.ca/le-soleil/ac...1-4972663-via-rail-voit-grand-pour-quebec.php
Here is an article published yesterday in the Quebec publication "Le Soleil", owned by Lapresse. Very interesting to get the Quebec perspective on HFR. In the article Yves Desjardins-Siciliano discusses what in English media is referring to as "Phase 2", the portion from Montreal to Quebec City. Here are some highlights (with simplified translations) from the article:
"Dans sa portion toute québécoise, entre la capitale et la métropole, le train roulerait sur des voies réservées, électrifiées, au nord du fleuve Saint-Laurent. Un seul arrêt est prévu à Trois-Rivières."
"On the Quebec portion, between Quebec City and Montreal, the trains will run on their own electrified tracks north of the St. Laurence River. Only one stop is planned, being at Trois-Rivières."
"Après le tronçon Ottawa-Toronto, facile à construire et très populeux, celui de Québec-Montréal pourrait ainsi être mis en chantier en deuxième, avant même Montréal-Ottawa. La construction pourrait débuter dès 2017 pour une mise en service en 2019."
"After the Ottawa-Toronto segment, which is easy to build and very populous, the Quebec-Montreal segment could well be started next, even before Montreal-Ottawa. Construction could begin in 2017 with it being in service in 2019."
"Plus près de Québec, un arrêt est aussi prévu à L'Ancienne-Lorette pour desservir l'aéroport, comme dans les plans du train à grande vitesse."
"Closer to Quebec (City), a stop is also planned at L'Ancienne-Lorette (a Quebec City suburb) to serve the airport (Jean Lesage International Airport), like the the former high speed rail plans."
http://www.lapresse.ca/le-soleil/ac...1-4972663-via-rail-voit-grand-pour-quebec.php
Here is an article published yesterday in the Quebec publication "Le Soleil", owned by Lapresse. Very interesting to get the Quebec perspective on HFR. In the article Yves Desjardins-Siciliano discusses what in English media is referring to as "Phase 2", the portion from Montreal to Quebec City. Here are some highlights (with simplified translations) from the article:
"Dans sa portion toute québécoise, entre la capitale et la métropole, le train roulerait sur des voies réservées, électrifiées, au nord du fleuve Saint-Laurent. Un seul arrêt est prévu à Trois-Rivières."
"On the Quebec portion, between Quebec City and Montreal, the trains will run on their own electrified tracks north of the St. Laurence River. Only one stop is planned, being at Trois-Rivières."
"Après le tronçon Ottawa-Toronto, facile à construire et très populeux, celui de Québec-Montréal pourrait ainsi être mis en chantier en deuxième, avant même Montréal-Ottawa. La construction pourrait débuter dès 2017 pour une mise en service en 2019."
"After the Ottawa-Toronto segment, which is easy to build and very populous, the Quebec-Montreal segment could well be started next, even before Montreal-Ottawa. Construction could begin in 2017 with it being in service in 2019."
"Plus près de Québec, un arrêt est aussi prévu à L'Ancienne-Lorette pour desservir l'aéroport, comme dans les plans du train à grande vitesse."
"Closer to Quebec (City), a stop is also planned at L'Ancienne-Lorette (a Quebec City suburb) to serve the airport (Jean Lesage International Airport), like the the former high speed rail plans."
mdrejhon
Senior Member
Will there be a Quebec pitch-in, like Ontario will likely fund (at least part) for the TKL segment?
The early genesis of Canadian corridor highspeed train service....even if it sensibly begins as HFR.
The early genesis of Canadian corridor highspeed train service....even if it sensibly begins as HFR.
Last edited:
robmausser
Senior Member
I don't think VIA's HFR and Ontarios HSR are antagonistic, but one would hope that Ontario and VIA communicate so that when VIA's HFR is upgraded to HSR in the future, its using compatible systems with the Ontario HSR track, so that a single VIA HSR train could do Quebec City to Windsor.
It would really suck if one had to transfer at Toronto, kinda defeats the purpose of High Speed if you have to do a layover somewhere IMO.
Although, another option would be for VIA to do their own HFR and then HSR on the Dundas Subdivision to the south, however I don't see a business case for 2 competing high speed corridors in Southern Ontario, there just isn't the density.
One would imagine that VIA would absorb the Ontario HSR system once it wanted to do the HSR thing, no?
It would really suck if one had to transfer at Toronto, kinda defeats the purpose of High Speed if you have to do a layover somewhere IMO.
Although, another option would be for VIA to do their own HFR and then HSR on the Dundas Subdivision to the south, however I don't see a business case for 2 competing high speed corridors in Southern Ontario, there just isn't the density.
One would imagine that VIA would absorb the Ontario HSR system once it wanted to do the HSR thing, no?
MisterF
Senior Member
I don't think that changing trains in Toronto is a big deal. It's where most passengers are going anyway and, along with Montreal, will be the major hub of the system. The vast majority of trains going to Toronto would terminate here. But you're right that the systems should be compatible. A high speed train from London should be able to continue on to Ottawa, even if it wouldn't in regular service. And a train from Ottawa should be able to use the high speed tracks. Hopefully they work together to create a seamless system, even if different routes are run by different agencies.
crs1026
Senior Member
CN and VIA have attempted through-train service but could never make it work, for a variety of little reasons that aren't insurmountable under an HFR project.
What many people don't realise is that the trainsets do in fact run through anyways. I have been aboard trains arriving in Toronto where there has been a PA announcement saying "If you are continuing on to Winsdor on train X, you don't need to alight at Toronto, this is the Windsor train". They seem to do this when the inbound train is late and they need to expedite the station pause.
We always seem to compare to Europe, and that's not bad....anyways, I have ridden through some pretty big terminals on through trains, and it's certainly more convenient than schlepping one's bags down a staircase only to go back up it a few minutes later.
- Paul
What many people don't realise is that the trainsets do in fact run through anyways. I have been aboard trains arriving in Toronto where there has been a PA announcement saying "If you are continuing on to Winsdor on train X, you don't need to alight at Toronto, this is the Windsor train". They seem to do this when the inbound train is late and they need to expedite the station pause.
We always seem to compare to Europe, and that's not bad....anyways, I have ridden through some pretty big terminals on through trains, and it's certainly more convenient than schlepping one's bags down a staircase only to go back up it a few minutes later.
- Paul