VIA Rail

[roger1818]

And what would ridership be at the cost of that ticket, given that the government is trying not to subsidize rail travel?

There are plenty of folks who say they'd take the train if it's faster. But they would want a ticket price lower than today. That's not a tenable proposition without substantial subsidies.

A Tokyo-Osaka Shinkansen ticket is about ¥14 000. About CA$ 160. That is one-way. Toronto-Montreal is actually 10% longer. But let's use this as a corollary. How many people would be willing to pay $320 round trip Toronto-Montreal?

This would work out about as well as the Union-Pearson Express. Everybody said they would use an airport train if it was built. They priced it lower than an airport limo ride and included a TTC fare in there. What happened? No ridership and the government had to take tens of millions in losses and cut fares by half. So we should all be skeptical when people say HSR has ridership, if it's built. HFR is a good, lower capital test of commitment. We'll see how much support there is for rail travel and the price sensitivity of riders. Plans can be made from there.

Yup. There is a common myth out there that HSR would be faster than flying and cheaper than driving. With increased speed comes increased costs. I would argue that while for some time is more important than money, for most, money is more important than time.

 

[robmausser]

That's why I'd say, build new track. The cost of building up in the Shield is the unknown that I fear greatly.

- Paul

Build a new track where? Aint gonna happen in CN or CP's corridor.

 

[kEiThZ]

Yup. There is a common myth out there that HSR would be faster than flying and cheaper than driving. With increased speed comes increased costs. I would argue that while for some time is more important than money, for most, money is more important than time.

Correct. And those demand trade offs can be modeled.

Every time I talk to an infrequent user about VIA, the complaints are cost and travel time. Usually in that order. Despite what people might say, they don't seem to be clamouring for HSR if they have to pay higher fares. HFR, therefore, fits the bill. Service improvement at a price that most people are willing to pay.

The next time somebody complains about how slow VIA is and starts spouting off about HSR in Asia or Europe, ask them if they'd pay $300 for a round trip HSR ticket.

 

[MisterF]

That's why I'd say, build new track. The cost of building up in the Shield is the unknown that I fear greatly.

- Paul

I'd say the greater unknown is how much a third track on the CN line would actually cost given how inflated the price of the last expansion became, and whether that would actually have any benefit. Via would still be at the mercy of CN no matter how many tracks are built. Maybe we should learn from history so that we can stop dooming ourselves to repeat it.

Via gets it. Hopefully the government does too.

 

[cplchanb]

Correct. And those demand trade offs can be modeled.

Every time I talk to an infrequent user about VIA, the complaints are cost and travel time. Usually in that order. Despite what people might say, they don't seem to be clamouring for HSR if they have to pay higher fares. HFR, therefore, fits the bill. Service improvement at a price that most people are willing to pay.

The next time somebody complains about how slow VIA is and starts spouting off about HSR in Asia or Europe, ask them if they'd pay $300 for a round trip HSR ticket.

Youre painting a false narrative. thing is though were not even arguing for Shinkansen levels of service here. If it were to be like the Nozomi,,Toronto to Montreal can be acheived in about 2.5hrs. Under 4hrs is what a charger on limited express can easily achieve at 160km/h avg.
I'm sure you wont be paying $300 round trip for that. Just because you have more trains doesnt mean it will be filled. You need an incentive, and as you said the current costs are a concern. What makes you think that running more frequent service will actually bring costs down?
There needs to be another more easily tangible incentive, which is speed. we dont need to have 300km/h trains. Hell even 200km or even 160km/h is plenty enough. the problem is that they are setting the bar so low that there is no real improvement over travel time

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

And what would ridership be at the cost of that ticket, given that the government is trying not to subsidize rail travel?

There are plenty of folks who say they'd take the train if it's faster. But they would want a ticket price lower than today. That's not a tenable proposition without substantial subsidies.

A Tokyo-Osaka Shinkansen ticket is about ¥14 000. About CA$ 160. That is one-way. Toronto-Montreal is actually 10% longer. But let's use this as a corollary. How many people would be willing to pay $320 round trip Toronto-Montreal?

This would work out about as well as the Union-Pearson Express. Everybody said they would use an airport train if it was built. They priced it lower than an airport limo ride and included a TTC fare in there. What happened? No ridership and the government had to take tens of millions in losses and cut fares by more than half (from $27.50 to $12). So we should all be skeptical when people say HSR has ridership, if it's built. HFR is a good, lower capital test of commitment. We'll see how much support there is for rail travel and the price sensitivity of riders. Plans can be made from there.

Given that airfare between those two cities is around $180 to $200. We have a serious issue with competitiveness. Heavy subsidies would be needed (not like air travel isn't subsidized), could the answer be in the smaller communities along the way (Kingston, etc) since those places don't have to compete with air travel.

It's kind of like the Canadian. A lot of people rude to travel between stations along the route, few actually do the full 4 day trip.

 

[littlewill1166]

Within 10 years of HFR's possible opening (let's say 2025)

Airport security screening will be as simple as walking through a millimetre wave scanner.

Evolv Express® - Security Screening for the New World

Revolutionary touchless security screening. 10x faster than metal detectors. Evolv Express offers a welcoming, line-free visitor experience.

evolvtechnology.com

There will be large zero-emissions aircraft in the skies to carry people between cities costing a fraction of the amount in fuel a similar flight does today.

Airbus reveals new zero-emission concept aircraft

Airbus has revealed three concepts for the world’s first zero-emission commercial aircraft which could enter service by 2035. These concepts each represent a different approach to achieving zero-emission flight, exploring various technology pathways and aerodynamic configurations in order to...

www.airbus.com

There will be zero-emissions air taxies shutting passengers from city centers to major airports.

United says it will buy up to 200 small electric aircraft to zip people to airports, avoid traffic

United could use the air taxi-type craft to carry passengers on short routes, such as from downtown Chicago to O’Hare International Airport.

www.chicagotribune.com

All of which will chip away at the value of HFR. Every day this project gets delayed makes this project less likely to succeed.

 

[lenaitch]

Nothing like planning public infrastructure based on glossy websites and translating "could" into "will be".

 

[EnviroTO]

Within 10 years of HFR's possible opening (let's say 2025)

Airport security screening will be as simple as walking through a millimetre wave scanner.

Evolv Express® - Security Screening for the New World

Revolutionary touchless security screening. 10x faster than metal detectors. Evolv Express offers a welcoming, line-free visitor experience.

evolvtechnology.com

There will be large zero-emissions aircraft in the skies to carry people between cities costing a fraction of the amount in fuel a similar flight does today.

Airbus reveals new zero-emission concept aircraft

Airbus has revealed three concepts for the world’s first zero-emission commercial aircraft which could enter service by 2035. These concepts each represent a different approach to achieving zero-emission flight, exploring various technology pathways and aerodynamic configurations in order to...

www.airbus.com

There will be zero-emissions air taxies shutting passengers from city centers to major airports.

United says it will buy up to 200 small electric aircraft to zip people to airports, avoid traffic

United could use the air taxi-type craft to carry passengers on short routes, such as from downtown Chicago to O’Hare International Airport.

www.chicagotribune.com

All of which will chip away at the value of HFR. Every day this project gets delayed makes this project less likely to succeed.

Yes, you can read about it all in my book from 1980 detailing what the year 2000 would be like.

 

[reaperexpress]

I wonder whether, if VIA shifts its primary trains to HFR, could CN allow 2-3 Turbo-like Toronto-Montreal schedules a day, so that the most time sensitive Toronto-Montreal passengers have options for a fast ride, perhaps at a premium fare.

I've been wondering about this too. On the one hand with fewer trains on the line it might be feasible to negotiate a generous path for a couple superexpress trips per day, but on the other hand, with fewer trains on the line, would CN drop the Kingston Sub from 100 mph to 80 mph to save on maintenance?

I assume there is some mechanism that VIA uses to get CN to maintain the track at 100 mph, since it doesn't benefit them at all. Does anyone know how this works currently?

 

[OntarioOnTheMove]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1377251391593398272

 

[SFO-YYZ]

Youre painting a false narrative. thing is though were not even arguing for Shinkansen levels of service here. If it were to be like the Nozomi,,Toronto to Montreal can be acheived in about 2.5hrs. Under 4hrs is what a charger on limited express can easily achieve at 160km/h avg.
I'm sure you wont be paying $300 round trip for that. Just because you have more trains doesnt mean it will be filled. You need an incentive, and as you said the current costs are a concern. What makes you think that running more frequent service will actually bring costs down?
There needs to be another more easily tangible incentive, which is speed. we dont need to have 300km/h trains. Hell even 200km or even 160km/h is plenty enough. the problem is that they are setting the bar so low that there is no real improvement over travel time

I took Beijing-Shanghai HSR route last year before the pandemic. It is probably the most heavily used route in the Chinese HSR network. Overall impression: I would definitely take it again due to the convenience and comfort. However, most of my Chinese friends balk at the high price tag (especially when compared with flying between Beijing and Shanghai which has a comparable price and is noticeably faster than HSR). Most people still prefer the somewhat slower sleeper T-category trains, which take more than 12 hours but are 50% cheaper and more economical than HSR options.

Beijing-Shanghai HSR:

Distance: 819 miles
Price: 950 RMB (or $182 CAD) for first class ticket one way (note that first class on Chinese HSR is equivalent in seating arrangement in economy on VIA, Amtrak, DB, and other western rail operators)
** for comparison, equivalent flight between 2 cities averages about $200 CAD one way.
** keeping in mind the Beijing-Shanghai route has been heavily subsidized by the state railway operator since inception in 2012 (as are most HSR routes in China), so the real ticket price could be substantially higher should subsidies go away in the near future
** further keeping in mind this is in a country where over 600 million people still make an income of less than $140 USD per month as admitted by the Chinese premier Li Keqiang at his 2020 news conference - so an HSR ticket of $182 CAD is clearly out of reach for nearly 50% of the population
Travel time: 6 hrs station to station at 300 kph for HSR vs. 2 hr 30 min for flight gate to gate

First Class seats on Beijing-Shanghai Fuxing HSR:

 

[kEiThZ]

What makes you think that running more frequent service will actually bring costs down?

Asset utilization. The 10% decrease in total travel times from Toronto to Montreal, along with the combination of Toronto-Ottawa and Ottawa-Montreal en route means a lot more seats occupied for the length of the route, with lower overall costs on personnel, rolling stock required, etc.

I would expect that a steady state HFR (say 5 yrs in) has a lower cost per rider than today's service.

the problem is that they are setting the bar so low that there is no real improvement over travel time

Because speed costs money. We saw that Torontonians weren't even willing to pay for a faster transferless train ride to the airport. And you think there's a case they'll pay for more speed? I don't see it.

But here's the great part. Toronto-Ottawa will be marginally competitive with air for a lot of travellers. If that ridership beats expectations substantially, we'll have a great case for investment in travel time reduction.

 

[kEiThZ]

Given that airfare between those two cities is around $180 to $200. We have a serious issue with competitiveness. Heavy subsidies would be needed (not like air travel isn't subsidized), could the answer be in the smaller communities along the way (Kingston, etc) since those places don't have to compete with air travel.

It's kind of like the Canadian. A lot of people rude to travel between stations along the route, few actually do the full 4 day trip.

Pre-Covid, Kingston actually had air service.

And aviation is actually not substantially subsidized in Canada. Which is partly why ticket prices are so high. The major airports pay hundreds of millions in ground rent to the federal government annually and fully fund their own infrastructure. This is partly why Ottawa is so reticent to build HSR. They would have to subsidize something that literally cuts into federal revenue.

 

[kEiThZ]

I've been wondering about this too. On the one hand with fewer trains on the line it might be feasible to negotiate a generous path for a couple superexpress trips per day, but on the other hand, with fewer trains on the line, would CN drop the Kingston Sub from 100 mph to 80 mph to save on maintenance?

I assume there is some mechanism that VIA uses to get CN to maintain the track at 100 mph, since it doesn't benefit them at all. Does anyone know how this works currently?

Paul and you are forgetting about the Kingston hub. We'll still be running the equivalent of a half to full dozen trains the length of the Lakeshore corridor. Only now they start in Kingston.