News   Jul 19, 2024
 800     0 
News   Jul 19, 2024
 3.6K     7 
News   Jul 19, 2024
 1.1K     3 

VIA Rail

I sure hope the City of Oshawa Council looked at a map before passing its resolution in support of HSR. It's hard to see what benefit they will get from HSR - even if it stops once or twice at somebody's dream of a north Durham stop, that won't be particularly helpful service.

The elephant of the room that everyone is sidestepping (and, the axe that I keep grinding) is just how to serve the Lakeshore communities from Oshawa over to Cornwall. Given that there is no change proposed in the relationship between CN and VIA or its P3 partner, service on that route will always be at CN's mercy - and even if track slots are available, the financial picture for the route absent the through T-O-M business will push towards reduction in service, not improvement. I can't imagine that a HSR-focussed proponent would want to retain the local business in their operation, whereas a HFR-focussed proponent might swallow hard and accept it.

- Paul
 
I sure hope the City of Oshawa Council looked at a map before passing its resolution in support of HSR. It's hard to see what benefit they will get from HSR - even if it stops once or twice at somebody's dream of a north Durham stop, that won't be particularly helpful service.

The elephant of the room that everyone is sidestepping (and, the axe that I keep grinding) is just how to serve the Lakeshore communities from Oshawa over to Cornwall. Given that there is no change proposed in the relationship between CN and VIA or its P3 partner, service on that route will always be at CN's mercy - and even if track slots are available, the financial picture for the route absent the through T-O-M business will push towards reduction in service, not improvement. I can't imagine that a HSR-focused proponent would want to retain the local business in their operation, whereas a HFR-focused proponent might swallow hard and accept it.

- Paul
HSR or maybe some hybrid of Higher Speeds and Higher Frequency should be the subject of this study and the study should be focused on bringing this to the existing VIA Lakeshore Line. The rest is a pipedream of epic proportions, but as epic as many proposed by governments of different political strips - the 407, Mirabel, BC 'Fast' Ferries, the Champlain bridge, the Lake Erie connector, and dare we add Muskrat Falls. I am sure others could come up with more. But the point here I think is that the natural and existing service areas are the existing VIA Lakeshore route. And that should be the focus of attention. There is no reason, with the cash making machine attached to this project, that significant upgrades in speed, frequency and comfort could not be made. Peterborough can be a part of the Regional Go Service that can stretch from Niagara Falls, KW. Barrie, Peterborough, Bowmanville through to Toronto.

I am with you on the axe grinding and somewhere I have a foot powered grinder which I will be happy to lend to keep this axe fully sharpened!!
 
Last edited:
the study should be focused on bringing this to the existing VIA Lakeshore Line.
The study will discover the only way to do this would be to buy CN out for hundreds of billions of dollars and be infeasible. End of study.

CN is one of the largest companies in Canada, publically traded and has tons of government lobbyists and connections.

VIA and TC aren't choosing the route they chose for a lark or because they like Perth, Its because using the lakeshore corridor is infeasible as HFR or HSR. Full stop.
 
The study will discover the only way to do this would be to buy CN out for hundreds of billions of dollars and be infeasible. End of study.

CN is one of the largest companies in Canada, publically traded and has tons of government lobbyists and connections.

VIA and TC aren't choosing the route they chose for a lark or because they like Perth, Its because using the lakeshore corridor is infeasible as HFR or HSR. Full stop.
The only way tracks can be use in CN corridor, it will have to be on 2 tracks separated from CN to allow the use of OS which is a no go today for GO. Same issue for all RR in NA.
 
The only way tracks can be use in CN corridor, it will have to be on 2 tracks separated from CN to allow the use of OS which is a no go today for GO. Same issue for all RR in NA.
Right but CN owns the ROW. So they would still need to be at CN's mercy.

Building it themselves frees them of that.
 
Right but CN owns the ROW. So they would still need to be at CN's mercy.

Building it themselves frees them of that.
CP might have a different policy, but CN insists on retaining operating control of all tracks which are built or paid by no matter whom within its ROW, which means that any Lakeshore HFR/HSR Alignment would need to either use CP‘s Belleville Sub or be entirely greenfield. Therefore, all „Let‘s just add tracks to the Kingston Sub to allow frequent and reliable service“ proposals are mere Railfan Fiction (or to borrow the words already used by someone four posts above: „pipedreams“), no matter how often they are presented here as the obvious solution every single planner at VIA or HFR-TGF has somehow forgotten to think of… :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
The study will discover the only way to do this would be to buy CN out for hundreds of billions of dollars and be infeasible. End of study.

CN is one of the largest companies in Canada, publically traded and has tons of government lobbyists and connections.

VIA and TC aren't choosing the route they chose for a lark or because they like Perth, Its because using the lakeshore corridor is infeasible as HFR or HSR. Full stop.
I respect your point of view, but I am not sure I share it.

So, we are going to build a greenfield pipe dream that does not serve most
of the population currently being served or could be served as populations in those areas expand ( in part due to improved rail service), but maybe we will add a stop in Sharbot Lake at some point in the future? And that makes more sense? It will be truly very interesting to view the costing of this project in detail.

As a taxpayer I’m not sure I am willing to accept the current premise, and even more so when the costing comes out, especially with our experiences with other infrastructure projects of this scale. We’ll be back to talking about another airport in Pickering and we‘ve been over that ad infinitum.

I also am not sure I accept the idea that the government does not have tools currently or to come that would drive a more favourable outcome in regards to a Lakeshore route - be it a new row, an expanded existing row, or some hybrid model. Especially with a project of this scale. Especially as costs become more public.
 
I don't know how the Lakeshore route offers any solution We still end up with two routes, one to Montreal and the other to Ottawa. So, HFR is dead, since we can't run all TOM trains on the same route. Also, Via's most popular route between Ottawa and Toronto is limited by travel through Brockville. How practical is HSR with additional stops along Lakeshore. We are back to compromises between local and express service. The best we end up with is a somewhat improved status quo and likely spending more to achieve it. We tried to do this before and gave the extra capacity to CN.
 
I respect your point of view, but I am not sure I share it.

So, we are going to build a greenfield pipe dream that does not serve most
of the population currently being served or could be served as populations in those areas expand ( in part due to improved rail service), but maybe we will add a stop in Sharbot Lake at some point in the future? And that makes more sense? It will be truly very interesting to view the costing of this project in detail.

As a taxpayer I’m not sure I am willing to accept the current premise, and even more so when the costing comes out, especially with our experiences with other infrastructure projects of this scale. We’ll be back to talking about another airport in Pickering and we‘ve been over that ad infinitum.

I also am not sure I accept the idea that the government does not have tools currently or to come that would drive a more favourable outcome in regards to a Lakeshore route - be it a new row, an expanded existing row, or some hybrid model. Especially with a project of this scale. Especially as costs become more public.
I don't understand these comments. The proposal serves more people than the status quo and offers more service for most if not all people. Regardless, the majority live in the three big cities. We have already tried to improve the Lakeshore route and it was a dismal failure We can't repeat doing the same thing and expect a different result. This is all about delivering a true express service. It is not about placing a stop at Sharbot Lake. If we cannot achieve a Greenfield route, how will we do this on an already congested corridor. Via's experience with self owned track around Ottawa already demonstrates the value of getting away from freight corridors
 
I respect your point of view, but I am not sure I share it.

So, we are going to build a greenfield pipe dream that does not serve most
of the population currently being served or could be served as populations in those areas expand ( in part due to improved rail service), but maybe we will add a stop in Sharbot Lake at some point in the future? And that makes more sense? It will be truly very interesting to view the costing of this project in detail.

As a taxpayer I’m not sure I am willing to accept the current premise, and even more so when the costing comes out, especially with our experiences with other infrastructure projects of this scale. We’ll be back to talking about another airport in Pickering and we‘ve been over that ad infinitum.

I also am not sure I accept the idea that the government does not have tools currently or to come that would drive a more favourable outcome in regards to a Lakeshore route - be it a new row, an expanded existing row, or some hybrid model. Especially with a project of this scale. Especially as costs become more public.
CN is a private company. I don't know how you are going to force them to give you access to their ROW.

What's wrong with building it and owning it on their own? Even if you build it on the existing ROW you still need to build bridges, new stations we tv.
 
Let the current VIA route remain a milk run that serves all the bedroom communities & build the new HSR along a new corridor like the one they're proposing for HFR but with even less stops. Personally, I'd do only Eglinton, Peterborough and Smith Falls between Union & Ottawa. Stopping too often defeats the purpose of high speed. The only reason I'd even keep Smith Falls is because there's already a north-south (ish) connection to the regular VIA route which might be handy for those wanting to transfer.
 
Last edited:
CN is a private company. I don't know how you are going to force them to give you access to their ROW.

I'd bet an extra $200 per km would guarantee near absolute priority for Via trains. CNs annual revenue would be up by about 8% (~$1B), mostly profit after they build/extend a bunch of sidings.

Of course, Corridor ticket prices would need to triple.
 
I don't understand these comments. The proposal serves more people than the status quo and offers more service for most if not all people. Regardless, the majority live in the three big cities. We have already tried to improve the Lakeshore route and it was a dismal failure We can't repeat doing the same thing and expect a different result. This is all about delivering a true express service. It is not about placing a stop at Sharbot Lake. If we cannot achieve a Greenfield route, how will we do this on an already congested corridor. Via's experience with self owned track around Ottawa already demonstrates the value of getting away from freight corridors

Furthermore, if we are talking about HSR, the purpose of it is not a milk run that stops at all the towns along the way on the Lakeshore line. The trains would bypass 90% of the towns in that corridor, so I don't see the advantage of putting it there.

The last times I took HSR in Europe, the train stopped maybe once between my major city destinations.
 
Furthermore, if we are talking about HSR, the purpose of it is not a milk run that stops at all the towns along the way on the Lakeshore line. The trains would bypass 90% of the towns in that corridor, so I don't see the advantage of putting it there.

Exactly. HSR (and even HFR) are incompatible with the freight traffic on the Lakeshore line. A different and separate line is needed for these. Even tying these to the current alignment along the Lakeshore may be difficult.

The challenge for the Lakeshore line is how effective a regional service (which implies Challenger/Venture quality equipment, for the next couple decades) can be offered on the Lakeshore, but that is an apple, where Hx4 is clearly an orange in a different bin.

- Paul
 
Furthermore, if we are talking about HSR, the purpose of it is not a milk run that stops at all the towns along the way on the Lakeshore line. The trains would bypass 90% of the towns in that corridor, so I don't see the advantage of putting it there.

The last times I took HSR in Europe, the train stopped maybe once between my major city destinations.
But in Europe there are different level of trains on the same route. Commuter, local, semi express and express.

VIA doesn't have that. You need to be able to take the local train that stops at all stops and transfer to a semi express or express train.

For example you need a local train making all stops which will take you from Port Hope and take you to Belleville or Kingston where you transfer to the express train to go to Ottawa or Montreal. Or take the GO from Eglinton to Oshawa and then transfer to the express train to Kingston where you can catch a local to Napanee. You could even have smaller stops like Brighton whici would be a good spot for a commuter train to take passengers to Belleville or Cobourg.
 

Back
Top