VIA Rail

[Darwinkgo]

You're telling me they decided to launch the most significant investment in intercity rail in half a century and then not actually tell the public about it in their budget?

Yes. Because you might have noticed, there were a lot of $1 billion + things in the budget! $8 billion for the net zero accelerator, $30 billion for childcare. Lots of others.

In a normal year, this would likely have occupied enough mindshare and dollar value to be one of the 'top 5' announceables. This is not a normal year.

Plus why splash it around - it is going to be lost in Ontario and Quebec's COVID crisises. Just wait until June!

In the end though, since the CIB is arms length, and you want to sell the CIB's 'book' once the investment is up and running so the CIB can then support another project, the government can't announce projects for them - they have to be announced with them. The budget was not the place for that.

 

[kEiThZ]

I guess we'll see in a few weeks what reality is here.

I actually do hope I'm wrong.

 

[crs1026]

I'll add another bit of archania for you. If the JPO found a subsidy was needed, the CIB could not sign off on an investment before the feds signed off on a subsidy. Now the process can flow through Treasury Board (program approval), then the CIB board can approve, then the JPO full report goes to the Minister of the Environment and a mandatory waiting period starts (we will hear about this if anyone is paying attention). Then the Minister/Cabinet signs off on the report, and then an event with the PM is scheduled. If the process is properly followed.

If they don't think someone will sue (or a FNMI group or person will sue) they can take the risk and do the above in just about any order.

Ah....we have achieved national equality. Getting HFR approved is every bit as tortuous as getting a pipeline approved. Everybody plays by the same rules.

I'm coming around to believing this is indeed what is happening.

What helped the penny land softly was realising that $491M is roughly the amount that the Montreal-Quebec segment was said to cost, and this was the segment that was said to not have a positive ROI. So the decision posed is.... does Cabinet want a Montreal-Toronto investment that the CIB supports, or does Cabinet want the Quebec-Toronto investment, which means chipping in some money over and above what the CIB will invest. No surprise that Cabinet saw fit to make up the difference - clearly the grass routes east of Montreal want this badly.

- Paul

 

[ssiguy2]

Tier 4 is certainly better but under no stretch of the imagination is it good little alone ideal.

I think Ottawa would be far more receptive to expanding VIA if VIA had absolutely any policies on how it will decarbonise but it doesn't. Saying it's better than driving is a cop-out and as we quickly switch to zero emissions vehicles, taking VIA will be the polluting way to go.

Catenary is going to cost a fortune but it doesn't have to start there. VIA could begin testing the viability of battery or hydrogen trains and battery one's especially on shorter routes like Mon-Ott, Mon-QC, Tor-Lon/Wind. Tor-Ott-Mon will be much more problematic as battery technology simply hasn't advanced enough to serve these much longer routes and hydrogen isn't possible yet either as there is no infrastructure in place.

If VIA had approached Ottawa stating that HFR money would not only go towards expanding and speeding up the service but also would kick-off VIA ability to decarbonise than I think they would have had a more receptive response.

 

[DirectionNorth]

Tier 4 is certainly better but under no stretch of the imagination is it good little alone ideal.

I think Ottawa would be far more receptive to expanding VIA if VIA had absolutely any policies on how it will decarbonise but it doesn't. Saying it's better than driving is a cop-out and as we quickly switch to zero emissions vehicles, taking VIA will be the polluting way to go.

Catenary is going to cost a fortune but it doesn't have to start there. VIA could begin testing the viability of battery or hydrogen trains and battery one's especially on shorter routes like Mon-Ott, Mon-QC, Tor-Lon/Wind. Tor-Ott-Mon will be much more problematic as battery technology simply hasn't advanced enough to serve these much longer routes and hydrogen isn't possible yet either as there is no infrastructure in place.

If VIA had approached Ottawa stating that HFR money would not only go towards expanding and speeding up the service but also would kick-off VIA ability to decarbonise than I think they would have had a more receptive response.

Except that VIA has to go with whatever CN and CP decide. We don't know what they are planning.

If HFR is electrified, VIA estimates that the cost goes up 50%. Then people complain that it's too expensive, and it's cancelled.

 

[kEiThZ]

Ah....we have achieved national equality. Getting HFR approved is every bit as tortuous as getting a pipeline approved. Everybody plays by the same rules.

I'm coming around to believing this is indeed what is happening.

What helped the penny land softly was realising that $491M is roughly the amount that the Montreal-Quebec segment was said to cost, and this was the segment that was said to not have a positive ROI. So the decision posed is.... does Cabinet want a Montreal-Toronto investment that the CIB supports, or does Cabinet want the Quebec-Toronto investment, which means chipping in some money over and above what the CIB will invest. No surprise that Cabinet saw fit to make up the difference - clearly the grass routes east of Montreal want this badly.

- Paul

It's an interesting take. But again, if that is true, why not a big official launch?

I can buy that they put in some allocation in the budget and would work to make the announcement later. But now you have Catherine McKenna and Omar Alghabra going on Twitter and insinuating that they are investing in HFR. I'm not sure if they are just trying to score political points with their $491M investment, or there will be an HFR announcement, in which case why front run it with random tweets from two ministers?

 

[Darwinkgo]

why front run it with random tweets from two ministers?

From the communications strategy point, it helps people be not surprised, and it reminds media that this is a live issue and might come up soon.

Plus, I'm sure with the bubble up in french media about HSR before the budget, and then all the Mayors writing for HFR, that this can also be taking as a 'calm down everyone'.

 

[kEiThZ]

if VIA had absolutely any policies on how it will decarbonise

That is not for VIA to decide.

You clearly don't seem to understand how government works. And how Crown Corporations work. VIA cannot decide to decarbonize on its own. It needs capital to do that. And this has to come from government.

In case you haven't noticed this government is much more talk then action. Take a known low hanging fruit: Canada Post. Logistics companies everywhere are going electric. There's already a positive ROI on doing this. The vehicles to electrify are already on the market and getting cheaper. They could commit to electrifying at least the last mile delivery fleet by 2030, just by replacing vehicles aging out of the fleet. Canada Post would need a few hundred million to do this. And it would take an order of magnitude in emissions more than VIA off the federal books. Not a peep from the Liberals.

Let's be clear. When they say they are serious about climate change, it's more about an excuse to implement policies that let them buy votes (like EV and home retrofit rebates) than any sincere pursuit of emissions cuts. The carbon tax rebate cheques are the epitome of this scheme.

 

[kEiThZ]

What helped the penny land softly was realising that $491M is roughly the amount that the Montreal-Quebec segment was said to cost, and this was the segment that was said to not have a positive ROI.

I was under the impression that this segment was a billion bucks. If it needs a half billion to work, the ROI must have been horrendous!!!

 

[Allandale25]

It's an interesting take. But again, if that is true, why not a big official launch?

I can buy that they put in some allocation in the budget and would work to make the announcement later. But now you have Catherine McKenna and Omar Alghabra going on Twitter and insinuating that they are investing in HFR. I'm not sure if they are just trying to score political points with their $491M investment, or there will be an HFR announcement, in which case why front run it with random tweets from two ministers?

One other interesting aspect of this is that the Minister's tweets and the budget reference using the project name of "high frequency rail" continues to build awareness for that plan. Also, they've achieved a situation where the pro-HSR folks are disappointed (see the HSR Canada twitter feed) and those who wanted faster action and the full $6-8B HFR budget requirement (and full JPO release) are also disappointed. So both sides can equally claim disappointment, but for those who are pro-HFR, I assume there's some relief it's at least still being discussed.

On the whole topic of HSR vs HFR, I'm reminded of this article from a few years ago by Sean Marshall, in case people here haven't seen it. It was about a different corridor of course, but there are some relevant points.

A need for high-speed rail reality (Updated)

With the province moving ahead on high speed rail in Southwestern Ontario, other transportation needs are being ignored

seanmarshall.ca

 

[nfitz]

Except that VIA has to go with whatever CN and CP decide. We don't know what they are planning.

I'd think what GO sticks on the Lakeshore Line would be a more imminent issue.

 

[reaperexpress]

^ I'm not as familiar with the Ottawa-Montreal stretch as I am with the Toronto-Ottawa stretch.

What types of projects between Ottawa-Montreal could the $491 million be spent on?

I agree with the others that Ottawa-Montreal (and Smiths Falls-Ottawa) would be a good non-controversial target for improvements.

Here's where I would spend some of the money along the Smiths Falls and Alexandria subdivisions:

Track Speed Upgrades​

Both railways currently have 100 mph (160 km/h) speed limits. Upgrading the lines to 110 mph (177 km/h) would bring them up to the promised top speed of HFR – bringing some good publicity for the railway and politicians. This would involve upgrading level crossings and probably replacing some track.

There is also a particularly slow segment of track within the City of Ottawa, between Ottawa and Fallowfield stations. This also needs to be addressed to cut down travel times between Toronto and Ottawa.

Curve Realignments​

Both railways have some curves which appear to be relatively easy to realign and would noticeably reduce travel times and fuel consumption.

Along the Smiths Falls subdivision there is an 85 mph (137 km/h) speed restriction due to a curve right in the middle of an otherwise 100 mph (161 km/h) segment.

Existing speed limits in mph

Since the curve is only a few degrees, relatively little property would be required to widen the curve radius to allow trains to maintain a steady 110 mph (177 km/h).

Black line: current alignment; Green line: new alignment

Along the Alexandria subdivision there is a collection of 3 sharp curves in a segment which is otherwise quite straight. Together, these 3 major curve realignments, as well as three more slight realignments, would create a 26 km (16 mile) segment of continuous 110 mph running at quite a modest cost.

Siding Adjustments​

The two lines are single-tracked, and trains cross each other using short sidings located roughly every 16 kilometres (10 miles). These represent a considerable source of delay. Each time a train encounters another train in the opposite direction, at least one of the trains incurs several minutes of delay as it slows down for the switches, sits around waiting for the train in the other direction, and eventually accelerates back up to speed.

Two very low-hanging fruit are the siding configurations at Casselman and Alexandria stations.

In Casselman, there is a siding just east of the station. Trains often serve the station, then roll forward a few hundred metres, and stop again to wait for the train in the opposite direction. Extending the siding west to the station itself would allow the opposing train to approach while the train is sitting in the station, which would save a couple minutes. Less than half of the trains between Ottawa and Montréal stop at the station, so it is not a problem that only one of the two tracks would have a platform.

At Alexandria station, there is an even lower-hanging fruit. Currently the mainline track passes by the platform, and a siding bypasses it to the north. But this means that when trains meet at the station, the train bypassing the station needs to slow down order to switch tracks. Realigning the switches so that the mainline bypasses the station would allow the train skipping the station to pass through at full speed. It wouldn’t make a difference to the train serving the station since it already needs to slow down regardless of the switches.

Double Track Segments​

In addition to the above adjustments at stations, some double-track segments could be built to allow trains to meet at full speed between stations. A cost-effective option would be to build double-track segments roughly 16 km long, so that they can replace two sidings each. One of the double track segments on the map below is the segment including the curve realigments above. I figure it’s cheaper to do both realignment and double tracking at once, than to realign one segment and double track another.

Existing sidings in green, proposed double track in purple

Using the double track segments to reduce the number of sidings helps keep maintenance costs low by minimizing the number of switches, which are a disproportionately high-maintenance component of a railway line.

 

[kEiThZ]

Also, they've achieved a situation where the pro-HSR folks are disappointed (see the HSR Canada twitter feed) and those who wanted faster action and the full $6-8B HFR budget requirement (and full JPO release) are also disappointed.

Actually, Paul Lanagan is crowing that the lack of HFR funding is evidence of its inadequacy. He's not disappointed at all. Go look at as HSRCanada's Twitter feed.

So both sides can equally claim disappointment, but for those who are pro-HFR, I assume there's some relief it's at least still being discussed.

I really wouldn't put it this way. I'm relieved they haven't cancelled the thing entirely. I'm pissed they don't yet have a plan to actually build it.

 

[kEiThZ]

In addition to the above adjustments at stations, some double-track segments could be built to allow trains to meet at full speed between stations. A cost-effective option would be to build double-track segments roughly 16 km long, so that they can replace two sidings each.

Could a case be made to double track the whole line from Ottawa to Coteau?

 

[reaperexpress]

Could a case be made to double track the whole line from Ottawa to Coteau?

Not at this stage. HFR still only envisions about 1-2 trains per hour, which is totally doable on single track.

Full double-tracking could be part of a later upgrade, if we decide to run more than 2 trains per hour. It would need to be accompanied by some capacity improvements such as a new railway from the Alexandria Sub to the west edge of Montreal's built-up area, and a rail-to-rail grade separation across the CP mainline (just north of Coteau). It could also be bundled with some additional curve realignments and road-to-rail grade separations.

Actually, now that I think of it, the rail-to-rail grade separation might even be included in the $491M as a negotiating chip with CP.

New ROWs in blue