VIA Rail

[crs1026]

Do folks in Peterborough understand how the proposed service will impact their city?

If I am understanding it, the new VIA service will run on the tracks that go through a very idyllic residential neighbour on the east side of the river (East City), including a very awkward diagonal currently at-grade rail/road crossing on Maria Street. There are many at-grade crossings along the route and a pivot bridge over the Trent canal as well. This seems like it will have a huge impact on the city but I haven't read anything about how they plan to deal with all of this nor any reaction from local residents.

I don't think it's as bad as all that.... but it does suggest either a slower speed limit through town, and/or possibly some long term planning for grade separation. Two short trains per hour will not lead to congestion at level crossings, although over the long term grade separation is a goal. (I wonder if Peterboro has done the net-net on gaining train service vs funding those grade separations.....)

The Peterborough Mayor was quoted as saying the station needed to be downtown, but maybe a bit west of the old depot, to provide more room for parking. None of the adjoining property has anything valuable on it (except maybe the bus garage) so land acquisition ought to be doable and reasonably affordable.

A downtown location would make most sense for what the HFR service will be... ie an intercity station linking Peterborough to Toronto and Ottawa. Downtown is as close as one could get to Trent U, and the development impact on the downtown would be very favourable. The down side is that all travellers would have to arrive and depart downtown, which attracts traffic into the downtown area.

Others assume that Peterborough will become the end point of a GO Train... and there will be a traditional peak service taking people to work in Durham or Toronto and returning at night. If that were going to be the case, I might argue for moving the station to the southwest end, close to Fleming College. Or even at the Landsowne Ave crossing. Either Airport Road or Lansdowne would enable good last-mile connectivity, albeit at the expense of Trent U. It would keep the commuter trips out of the downtown.

Personally, I hope GO stays away... no reason why VIA can't have a trainset or two lay over in Peterboro if that traffic is actually marketable. HFR is not GO, nor is it the Shining Waters railway....someone needs to ensure that expectations are recalibrated.

I don't see much advantage in switching to the CN route. It crosses almost as many streets. The existing line has the advantage of being accepted as a rail line - why rock the boat?.

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

I don't think it's as bad as all that.... but it does suggest either a slower speed limit through town, and/or possibly some long term planning for grade separation. Two short trains per hour will not lead to congestion at level crossings, although over the long term grade separation is a goal. (I wonder if Peterboro has done the net-net on gaining train service vs funding those grade separations.....)

I suspect VIA would need to respect Transport Canada's new Grade separation assessment guidelines (created in response to the 2015 TSB Recommendation R15-04, made after the fatal collision between an OC Transpo bus and a VIA Rail passenger train). The Criteria that I suspect will be most relevant for HFR is the Cross Product (the product of the average number of trains per day and the Annual average daily traffic (AADT)) exceeding 1 million. If we assume that there will be an average of 30 trains a day (15 each way), and the AADT at the crossing exceeds 33 thousand, grade separation would be recommended.

 

[robmausser]

LOL........this is a Del Duca presser!

From the presser:

efforts will also be undertaken to determine how passenger rail services might be improved to better service markets west of Toronto, including London and Windsor.

And:

View attachment 336477

*****

So, let's follow along everyone: A presser was held to announce efforts to explore and talk.

That's it.

No new infra investments, no new services, not so much as an EA or a timeline.....

I'm really hopeful that eventually VIA will create an HFR southwest by buying the GEXR sub from CN to London and upgrading the rail to Class 7 200kmh. They will have to contend with Metrolinx and CN on the portion from Union to Kitchener but I dont see that as much of a problem.

As far as Windsor goes, theres lots of farm fields, so building a rail line adjacent to the existing CN/CP mainlines would probably be quite easy. VIA fortunately already owns the track near Windsor so getting into Windsor where land acquisition would become expensive and difficult is not a problem.

 

[DirectionNorth]

I'm really hopeful that eventually VIA will create an HFR southwest by buying the GEXR sub from CN to London and upgrading the rail to Class 7 200kmh. They will have to contend with Metrolinx and CN on the portion from Union to Kitchener but I dont see that as much of a problem.

View attachment 336609

As far as Windsor goes, theres lots of farm fields, so building a rail line adjacent to the existing CN/CP mainlines would probably be quite easy. VIA fortunately already owns the track near Windsor so getting into Windsor where land acquisition would become expensive and difficult is not a problem.

View attachment 336608

For the K-L line, you'd need to straighten those curves west of Kitchener, and bypasses of Baden, St. Mary's, New Hamburg, and Stratford. You'd be better off building a new alignment there (in my uneducated opinion. Does anyone else have more information than me?)

Given that CN was willing to sell that section of the Chatham Sub, I think there's a decent chance of just persuading them to sell the rest of the sub to Komoka, though you'd probably need bypasses for a lot of towns. Now you'd need to consider speed vs cost.

 

[roger1818]

As far as Windsor goes, theres lots of farm fields, so building a rail line adjacent to the existing CN/CP mainlines would probably be quite easy. VIA fortunately already owns the track near Windsor so getting into Windsor where land acquisition would become expensive and difficult is not a problem.

View attachment 336608

I really don't think it would be difficult for VIA to buy the remainder of the Chatham Sub from CN (if they had the funding). The difficult would be obtaining dedicated tracks through London to connect the Guelph Sub to the Chatham Sub as the Dundas and Strathroy subs are part of CN's mainline.

 

[Urban Sky]

I really don't think it would be difficult for VIA to buy the remainder of the Chatham Sub from CN (if they had the funding). The difficult would be obtaining dedicated tracks through London to connect the Guelph Sub to the Chatham Sub as the Dundas and Strathroy subs are part of CN's mainline.

I actually struggle to see CN selling the Eastern part of the Chatham Sub, as I believe freight traffic to be substantially higher than it was west of Chatham/Bloomfield or along the Alexandria Subdivision at any point after CN sold these segments...

 

[West End Boy]

I may have understood you. I thought you were suggesting building a station outside the city to facilitate a bypass? To me a downtown station really should be the goal, unless the costs and geometry just blow it. I am curious to see if that rail corridor through Peterborough is actually suitable for further development.

Interesting to hear everyone's thoughts. I can see the merit of building a bypass, though that would still be a big impact on land ownership, routing, etc, and the removal of the downtown station would be very unfortunate. But a serious rail corridor right through the established city also seems like a huge undertaking given the current state of the corridor.

I suspect that if/as the project progresses, there will be a lot of strong reactions from Pboro residents. I don't live there currently though am eyeing it for the future.

 

[crs1026]

For the K-L line, you'd need to straighten those curves west of Kitchener, and bypasses of Baden, St. Mary's, New Hamburg, and Stratford. You'd be better off building a new alignment there (in my uneducated opinion. Does anyone else have more information than me?)

Historically there was no slow order on any of the curves west of Kitchener - they were always good for 70 mph..... until CN and GEXR stopped maintaining the track, anyways. Worst case if VIA fixed up the line would be a short 70 mph slow order - not a big penalty timewise. I bet with banking that could be improved upon.

Collenette suggested a pretty nifty route to the south of the CN line in his HSR study.... and that got a pretty hefty backlash from local residents. I would say stick with the CN routing. Clearly Baden and maybe New Hamburg might justify a grade separation. A bypass around New Hamburg would require a new bridge over the river.... no doubt cheaper to stick with the one that's there.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

Historically there was no slow order on any of the curves west of Kitchener - they were always good for 70 mph..... until CN and GEXR stopped maintaining the track, anyways. Worst case if VIA fixed up the line would be a short 70 mph slow order - not a big penalty timewise. I bet with banking that could be improved upon.

Collenette suggested a pretty nifty route to the south of the CN line in his HSR study.... and that got a pretty hefty backlash from local residents. I would say stick with the CN routing. Clearly Baden and maybe New Hamburg might justify a grade separation. A bypass around New Hamburg would require a new bridge over the river.... no doubt cheaper to stick with the one that's there.

- Paul

I think there may be some value to protecting for a future by-pass of Stratford and St. Mary but not necessarily in implementing same in the near-term future.

I actually see Stratford as a marketable train trip from Toronto.

Though, the train station isn't ideally positioned relative to the theatres etc. There's not a lot to be done about that either. Though they really do need some public realm investment in the area of the station, the road connecting to Downtown; and throughout the latter. It doesn't really befit some very nice buildings, too much parking, too few trees.

 

[kEiThZ]

I can understand bypassing Saint Marys. I don't understand bypassing Stratford. It's becoming a bit of a KWC and London exurb. And the cultural attraction is probably strong enough to justify a station.

Keeping Stratford also makes it easier to justify bypassing Saint Marys since Stratford is only 20 mins away.

 

[Northern Light]

I can understand bypassing Saint Marys. I don't understand bypassing Stratford. It's becoming a bit of a KWC and London exurb. And the cultural attraction is probably strong enough to justify a station.

Keeping Stratford also makes it easier to justify bypassing Saint Marys since Stratford is only 20 mins away.

The merit, such as it is, involves the savings in distance, as well as creating a straighter line, capable of sustaining higher speeds over longer distances.

If you compare KW-London, via Stratford to KW-London via the straightest possible line, you save about 10km.
But you would also net increased track speed, and presumably fewer stops.

****

I happen to agree with you on the value of Stratford; but I also think there is some value in future-proofing and thinking about the value of shorter travel times between larger centres.

(ie.. Detroit-Toronto)

The savings off that one bypass aren't huge, but they aren't 'nothing' either.
The key is more in what you save by repeating similar exercises multiple times over the route.

I don't think there is a business case, based on current circumstances, or top speeds of 200km/ph for creating an entirely new ROW for optimal speed.

But I can foresee the day when that will be true, and a top speed of 300km/ph or greater.

As such, I like the idea of protecting the optimal route; but not building it, in the near-term.

 

[reaperexpress]

In the super long term we may wish to bypass St Mary's because there's a single-track viaduct through the middle of town that would be quite expensive to double track, thus reducing the net cost of a bypass relative to maintaining the existing alignment.

However at the moment we're a loooong way off from needing to fully double track the line. Having one small single tracked segment along an otherwise double-tracked line would still easily support 3 different train services per hour per direction, which is more than we would have in the foreseeable future anyway.

The existing alignment is pretty good, as I showed yesterday, so there's no way any kind of new alignment would beat the cost-benefit ratio of upgrading the existing line between Kitchener and London. The only place bypassing might make sense in the foreseeable future is Acton and Rockwood, since those 70 mph curves are within built up areas and cannot be widened, and the eastern half of the line will be considerably busier than the west.

 

[crs1026]

As such, I like the idea of protecting the optimal route; but not building it, in the near-term.

We need to get future rail corridors into official plans right across Southern Ontario. Makes no sense to create painful expropriations in a couple of decades when the land can be banked now.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

Just found this in a CTV news article:

"The exploratory work will include VIA Rail and the Canada Infrastructure Bank through the High Frequency Rail Joint Project Office."

Rail announcement loses steam with details of federal commitment lacking

Passengers in train-starved southwestern Ontario received a political commitment that rail service will improve, but few details were provided.

london.ctvnews.ca

Does this actually mean that the scope of the Study Area for HFR will be expanded to include SWO, just like I speculated ahead of the announcement?

 

[innsertnamehere]

Just found this in a CTV news article:

"The exploratory work will include VIA Rail and the Canada Infrastructure Bank through the High Frequency Rail Joint Project Office."

Rail announcement loses steam with details of federal commitment lacking

Passengers in train-starved southwestern Ontario received a political commitment that rail service will improve, but few details were provided.

london.ctvnews.ca

Does this actually mean that the scope of the Study Area for HFR will be expanded to include SWO, just like I speculated ahead of the announcement?

To me it sounds more like they will be studying improvements for southern ontario in addition to HFR through the same office. The level of service ultimately proposed may or may not be similar to what is occuring with the main HFR project.