VIA Rail

[Urban Sky]

Yeah, the Winchester Sub can be the shortcut east of Smiths Falls. I think it was discussed in this thread at some point last year.

Indeed, in July 2020, see my Post #7030:

[...]

If we now take the assumed hourly HFR service and deviate half of the services over the Bypass around Ottawa, our travel time between Toronto and Montreal decreases by the 15 minutes suggested by @innsertnamehere, which may increase of the passenger volume between of 5.1%. However, the resulting doubling of the headway offered between Toronto&Ottawa and between Ottawa&Montreal, may decrease the passenger volumes of these markets by 8.6% and 13.1%, respectively, thus resulting in an overall drop of passenger volume by 4.3%:

Now, one might argue that the Express trains should be offered in addition to hourly service, but since that extra train could just as well operate via Ottawa (thus doubling the frequency offered for all three markets), we have to compare this scenario with half-hourly service on the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor and this results very similar results, with bypassing Ottawa for a 15 minute travel time saving may increase passenger volume between Toronto and Montreal by 4.9%, but may decrease that between Toronto&Ottawa and between Ottawa&Montreal by 4.4% and 6.6%, respectively, thus resulting in an overall drop of passenger volume by 1.4%:

[...]

And all of the above is without considering that adding the Ottawa bypass adds 146 km (From De Beaujeu to Smiths Falls via CP's Winchester Sub) to the HFR network length (ignoring the Montreal-Quebec branch), thus increasing the length of ROW to be built or upgraded (which is a major cost driver for capital costs) by one-quarter and that adding an hourly Express train to hourly Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal trains would almost double train-mileage (which is a major cost driver for operating costs):

[...]

I honestly don’t know what the business case for having any Montreal-Toronto Express trains bypass Ottawa via the Winchester Sub is supposed to be, as it would significantly increase capital (25% more route-km to upgrade) and operating costs (94% more train-miles) for an insignificant increase of ridership (3.3%, according to my GJT model)...

 

[kEiThZ]

Eventually, if/when demand gets to the point where they can decouple the Toronto-Montreal trains from the Toronto-Ottawa and Ottawa-Montreal trains (without loosing frequency), they could build a shortcut.

Honestly, the kind of ridership to justify that is beyond several lifetimes. The multiplier effects of connecting the three large metros is huge. And those effects grow as HFR is extended westward to Pearson, Kitchener and London.

The Lakeshore traffic will have to stand on its own after HFR. And do so for further investment too. The Kingston hub will be plenty of capacity for decades to come.

 

[nfitz]

I honestly don’t know what the business case for having any Montreal-Toronto Express trains bypass Ottawa via the Winchester Sub is supposed to be, as it would significantly increase capital (25% more route-km to upgrade) and operating costs (94% more train-miles) for an insignificant increase of ridership (3.3%, according to my GJT model)...

Not a big surprise, as (according to your post) it only reduced Montreal-Toronto travel times from 4.75 hours to 4.5 hours.

But what if they were to instead build VIAFast from Toronto to Montreal, which VIA said would reduce the travel time to 3.5 hours? And also service Kingston-Toronto, which according to the Ecotrains survey has as much demand as Quebec-Ottawa.

 

[kEiThZ]

What would a proposal like ViaFast cost today? And post HFR how would that compare with just upgrading HFR on ridership and costs?

My bet is that any detailed study today would show ViaFast as something like $15B today. There was far less population and less freight traffic 20 years ago. VIaFast also didn't require electrification and wasn't planning on operating in an era of $130/tonne (or higher) carbon taxes.

Post-HFR, I suspect the logical choice will be progressive upgrading of HFR towards HSR standards. The Lakeshore Corridor will have enough capacity leftover from all the past investment to last lifetimes.

 

[EnviroTO]

Post-HFR, I suspect the logical choice will be progressive upgrading of HFR towards HSR standards. The Lakeshore Corridor will have enough capacity leftover from all the past investment to last lifetimes.

That is what I like about HFR... it is a first step on which everything else can be built. Smooth out a curve here, put in a grade separation there, double track a stretch, electrify a stretch for greater acceleration and utilize EDMUs, etc... every investment has some level of benefit returned. Sharing tracks and having lower priority isn't something that can be built on.

 

[kEiThZ]

Yep. When HFR was first being floated, I was kinda opposed. I didn't fully understand it or appreciate that it is not the end, but the beginning. Once you get that, the genius of the plan becomes apparent.

Once built VIA will be able to pitch future governments on projects that show tangible improvements in about 1-1.5 terms. This starts making investing in VIA politically attractive. Imagine how many seats get locked in for a Toronto-Pearson-Kitchener-London extension. I imagine there's probably a seat or two in Eastern Ontario for the party that upgrades Ottawa-Montreal. Likewise in Quebec for whoever upgrades Montreal-Quebec.

 

[nfitz]

What would a proposal like ViaFast cost today? And post HFR how would that compare with just upgrading HFR on ridership and costs?

My bet is that any detailed study today would show ViaFast as something like $15B today. There was far less population and less freight traffic 20 years ago. VIaFast also didn't require electrification and wasn't planning on operating in an era of $130/tonne (or higher) carbon taxes.

HFR doesn't have to be electrified either - and is surely unlikely to, given the huge cost that would involve - even if it is single track.

 

[Urban Sky]

Not a big surprise, as (according to your post) it only reduced Montreal-Toronto travel times from 4.75 hours to 4.5 hours.

But what if they were to instead build VIAFast from Toronto to Montreal, which VIA said would reduce the travel time to 3.5 hours? And also service Kingston-Toronto, which according to the Ecotrains survey has as much demand as Quebec-Ottawa.

Jesus, I get it that some people in Toronto hate Ottawa, but get real: it’s the third-largest CMA in this half of the country and almost twice as large as the fourth (Quebec City). Oh yes, it’s sometimes easy to forget, but it is also the god damn capital of this country and located almost exactly on the way between the two dominating metropolitan areas in this country!

Regardless of whatever travel time you envision between Montreal and Toronto, the HFR route (assuming the existing ROWs along the Montreal, Winchester, Alexandria, Beachburg, Smiths Falls, Belleville, Havelock and again: Belleville Subdivisions) would be 580 km and thus only 41 km (or 7.6 %) longer than CN’s Kingston Subdivision, which I believe to be the shortest rail alignment which ever existed between Montreal Gare Central and Toronto Union. Since people here seem to love Western end of the Winchester Sub (i.e. west of De Beaujeu) so much: Montreal-Toronto via Winchester and Havelock was 545 km (via Winchester and Belleville: 548 km). Which suggests the following:

Estimate for travel time HFR route with Ottawa Bypass via Winchester (Bedell)
4:45 h / 580 km * 545 km = 4:28 h (i.e. 17 minutes less)

Estimate for VIA Fast, but on HFR route
3:30h / 539 km * 580 km = 3:46 h (i.e. 16 minutes more)

France built a 90 km long High Speed Rail bypass around Paris to save passengers not wanting to travel through Paris 90 minutes and two transfers (while conveniently linking Europe’s by-far busiest theme park and its second-busiest airport on the way). Are we seriously talking about Canada building a 146 km long bypass (i.e. Winchester Sub from De Beaujeu to Smiths Falls) around Ottawa with virtually zero ridership potential along its route - just to save, what, less than 20 minutes and zero transfers...???

 

[kEiThZ]

HFR doesn't have to be electrified either - and is surely unlikely to, given the huge cost that would involve - even if it is single track.

Oh I don't expect HFR to be electrified. My point here is that it's far easier to electrify, twin track, straighten and grade separate a corridor that VIA owns than one on which VIA leases space from a freight operator.

Also, there's physics. Fuel consumption at 249 kph is a lot higher than at 177 kph. So now when the government decides that VIA will go over 200 kph, the upgradability of HFR guarantees that the upgrade will be electric.

I'm going to bet that I will be riding electrified HSR between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal in the 2050s, if HFR is finished this decade.

 

[crs1026]

What would a proposal like ViaFast cost today? And post HFR how would that compare with just upgrading HFR on ridership and costs?

My bet is that any detailed study today would show ViaFast as something like $15B today. There was far less population and less freight traffic 20 years ago. VIaFast also didn't require electrification and wasn't planning on operating in an era of $130/tonne (or higher) carbon taxes.

Post-HFR, I suspect the logical choice will be progressive upgrading of HFR towards HSR standards. The Lakeshore Corridor will have enough capacity leftover from all the past investment to last lifetimes.

Is the VIAFast study on line anywhere? I can only find a 2009 press report that put the cost at $2.5B. Costs will have risen since then, but I'm having trouble with $15B as a projection. Freight traffic has grown but that's not the story so much as it has transformed into a less compatible format, ie longer trains, that would add a whole new complexity to changing the plant. So certainly double the cost at least. Note that the scope seemed to imply Quebec-Windsor so a direct comparison to HFR needs to consider that.

HFR will certainly provide an attractive initial route, but the more I play with route data the idea of shaving time by easing curves seems less and less likely in the worst stretches. The Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec and Havelock-Toronto stretches may be amenable to that, but the Havelock-Perth stretch will remain high cost to change. If one assumes that the initial speeds may be moderately high, through banking, then the added cost to rework the alignment won't actually reduce times very much, so I would expect the ROI to not be all that compelling.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

Is the VIAFast study on line anywhere? I can only find a 2009 press report that put the cost at $2.5B. Costs will have risen since then, but I'm having trouble with $15B as a projection.

The Ecotrain study had $11B for electric 300 kph HSR in 2009 dollars. And it incorporated a lot of the ViaFast routing. Given the development, appreciation of land along the lakeshore, etc. I absolutely do not see how ViaFast would be less than double digit billions today.

 

[Urban Sky]

Is the VIAFast study on line anywhere? I can only find a 2009 press report that put the cost at $2.5B.

Study #17 (my favourite “STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL” document)

Ontario - Quebec

25 Ontario, Quebec high-speed rail, TGV studies. Windsor, Toronto, Ottawa Montreal, Quebec City. Certaines études à grande vitesse sont en français

www.highspeedrailcanada.com

HFR will certainly provide an attractive initial route, but the more I play with route data the idea of shaving time by easing curves seems less and less likely in the worst stretches. The Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec and Havelock-Toronto stretches may be amenable to that, but the Havelock-Perth stretch will remain high cost to change. If one assumes that the initial speeds may be moderately high, through banking, then the added cost to rework the alignment won't actually reduce times very much, so I would expect the ROI to not be all that compelling.

- Paul

Which is why I keep arguing to build that segment as cheap as possible and bypass it (via Kingston!) as soon as we grow the stomach to pay for greenfield HSR infrastructure...!

 

[kEiThZ]

I will never understand how people get all skeptical over the estimates from $70M worth of survey, analysis and engineering by the VIA-CIB JPO and yet will take that ViaFast $2.5B estimate from two decades ago as gospel, a reliable number that just needs to be escalated for inflation. Their study and modeling was hardly all that detailed. Even for the era.

 

[EnviroTO]

You couldn't do incremental upgrades to get you to 350km/h service that is expected on the new HSR systems in Europe and Asia without it being a complete fortune because the line isn't near straight enough and the terrain would be expensive to work with, but you should be able to make incremental upgrades to have the Peterborough - Perth corridor run 200km/h. Toronto to Peterborough in 45min, Peterborough to Ottawa in 90 min, Total time 2h 15min as compared to 4h 45min today. 4h 45min is longer than it takes to drive the Havelock route and that road has lots of slow sections. Add about 1h 15min to Montreal, that is 3h 30min as compared to 5h 10min today.

 

[nfitz]

Jesus, I get it that some people in Toronto hate Ottawa, but get real: it’s the third-largest CMA in this half of the country and almost twice as large as the fourth (Quebec City).

Wait, previously you said I hated Montreal ...

I suggested using the line though the Shield to Ottawa, and the alignment through Kingston to Montreal.

Quebec City might be fourth, but the Toronto-Kingston demand exceeds the Ottawa-Quebec City demand.

And at the rate Hamilton is growing, it will overtake Quebec City before the decade is out. And yet is almost completely left out of this plan!

I don't understand this concept of hating cities. Transportation planning should be numbers-driven.