VIA Rail

[nfitz]

But the T-O and O-M routes add up to 5 minutes longer than the T-M, yet a stop in Ottawa would add at least 15 minutes due to deceleration and loading, so the time would have to be about 4:05, not 3:45.

VIA has previously talked about running Toronto to Montreal expresses through Ottawa but without stopping. So no deceleration and stopping.

Can VIA run on that CN track between Hunt Club and Walkley, to avoid Ottawa station? Or perhaps lay another track along there?

 

[CapitalSeven]

VIA has previously talked about running Toronto to Montreal expresses through Ottawa but without stopping. So no deceleration and stopping.

Can VIA run on that CN track between Hunt Club and Walkley, to avoid Ottawa station? Or perhaps lay another track along there?

I hadn't thought of that. It could probably be done, and might explain the timings. I always thought it was crazy to run the Toronto-Montreal trains 80 km further than they need to go, but the economics might be in favour of it.

 

[crs1026]

VIA has previously talked about running Toronto to Montreal expresses through Ottawa but without stopping. So no deceleration and stopping.

Can VIA run on that CN track between Hunt Club and Walkley, to avoid Ottawa station? Or perhaps lay another track along there?

They could upgrade the bypass, yes, but a second track between Fallowfield and Ottawa Station would be preferable operationally and would achieve the same thing. A bypass track down the back of the depot would let trains run through at medium speed - no huge time loss.

I suspect those end to end times are notional rather than mathematically pure. In any event, there are all sorts of examples in Europe where an Ottawa-size midpoint stop on a through train would have only a 10 minute or less stop. That has to be loads cheaper than a dedicated right of way on two parallel routings. I can't imagine that the intent is to upgrade both Kingston-Ottawa-Montreal and Kingston-Brockville-Montreal given the overall emphasis on low capital cost.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

It must be via Ottawa since the combined times for the Toronto-Ottawa segment and the Ottawa-Montreal segments is nearly identical to the Toronto-Montreal travel times.

Toronto-Ottawa
Current trip: 4:01
Dedicated tracks: 2:30

Ottawa-Montreal
Current trip: 1:50
Dedicated tracks: 1:20

Toronto-Montreal
Current trip: 4:42
Dedicated tracks: 3:45

Nearly, but not quite. If they were going to run all of the service through Ottawa, essentially that would mean it would be a single route with a stop in Ottawa. But the T-O and O-M routes add up to 5 minutes longer than the T-M, yet a stop in Ottawa would add at least 15 minutes due to deceleration and loading, so the time would have to be about 4:05, not 3:45.

Again, I don't believe that the reduction in travel time is as much of what will make this proposal the by far most significant change for rail passengers in the history of VIA Rail than the increase in frequencies. When we ask our passengers about what stops them from using us more often, it is frequency and punctuality what get's mentioned far more often than travel time. After all, it is well known that people prefer sitting in a train for an hour over sitting in a car or waiting at a train station for the next departure for the same duration...

[...] I suspect those end to end times are notional rather than mathematically pure. In any event, there are all sorts of examples in Europe where an Ottawa-size midpoint stop on a through train would have only a 10 minute or less stop. That has to be loads cheaper than a dedicated right of way on two parallel routings. I can't imagine that the intent is to upgrade both Kingston-Ottawa-Montreal and Kingston-Brockville-Montreal given the overall emphasis on low capital cost.

- Paul

I would also regard above figures as preliminary until the results of the engineering studies are published and you are right, inter-city trains in Europe usually stop only for 2-5 minutes, even at major hubs. Furthermore, the "overall emphasis on low capital costs" also extends beyond infrastructure construction costs...

 

[mdrejhon]

Nearly, but not quite. If they were going to run all of the service through Ottawa, essentially that would mean it would be a single route with a stop in Ottawa. But the T-O and O-M routes add up to 5 minutes longer than the T-M, yet a stop in Ottawa would add at least 15 minutes due to deceleration and loading, so the time would have to be about 4:05, not 3:45.

I think that the concept of an Ottawa bypass section could actually allow this to happen, more cheaply than upgrading the Kingston-Montreal leg. Less kilometers for a speedy Ottawa bypasss, I think.

Or if they electrified, they can still stop! Just dwell Europe style and accelerate fast. Electrified in Europe adds only about 5mins for a station from intermediate speeds (150kph league) ... Level high platforms, like already planned for the Ottawa station, to speed baggage loading.

So the TOM triangle becomes linear instead and still outperform and also have better economics.
Less corridor land to purchase.

 

[Catenary]

They could upgrade the bypass, yes, but a second track between Fallowfield and Ottawa Station would be preferable operationally and would achieve the same thing. A bypass track down the back of the depot would let trains run through at medium speed - no huge time loss.

I suspect those end to end times are notional rather than mathematically pure. In any event, there are all sorts of examples in Europe where an Ottawa-size midpoint stop on a through train would have only a 10 minute or less stop. That has to be loads cheaper than a dedicated right of way on two parallel routings. I can't imagine that the intent is to upgrade both Kingston-Ottawa-Montreal and Kingston-Brockville-Montreal given the overall emphasis on low capital cost.

- Paul

The fact they they own the tracks to the station and don't own the line through Walkley Yard is another reason they would improve the tracks leading to the station. The issue is the sharp curve around Hurdman immediately west of the station would force trains to slow down regardless of if they were stopping, so there would be little benefit to an upgrade. VIA is also already raising the platform height in Ottawa and adding shelters for shorter dwell times. This dovetails nicely with the HFR plan running through Ottawa with trains making a quick stop.

 

[steveintoronto]

inter-city trains in Europe usually stop only for 2-5 minutes, even at major hubs.

Which raises an interesting question: Baggage. Carry-on or checked? I defer to carry-on, as it isn't passengers themselves entraining or detraining that will slow things down, it's the loading/unloading of baggage. I guess UPX sets an example there.

 

[crs1026]

Again, I don't believe that the reduction in travel time is as much of what will make this proposal the by far most significant change for rail passengers in the history of VIA Rail than the increase in frequencies. When we ask our passengers about what stops them from using us more often, it is frequency and punctuality what get's mentioned far more often than travel time.

That's likely the case for 'committed' rail travellers, for whom rail is likely the first choice but who sometimes find the train won't work for a particular planned trip. I wonder if new potential travellers might be easier to woo if the travel time is an attention-getter. Current times are fairly attractive east of Toronto, but getting track speeds up in the 100-110 mph range would make rail times really stand out. Even a three hour Ottawa-Toronto trip time would do that.

- Paul

 

[mdrejhon]

No more lineups, just go straight to the platform and board. I do that nowadays for VIA trains, just arrive 5mins prior and boaed, after the lineups have already emptied. Much more pleasant.

Onboard, VIA just beeps their tiny "zippo size" bluetooth barcode scanner on my email confirm displayed on my ipad or smartphone screen (or paper, or printout, or laptop screen, their nice little scanner toy literally reads anything instantly super reliably) when I am already settled into my seat. It's much more efficient than ten years ago.

I can print the boarding pass at the kiosks quick, but thats completely optional...if you have the barcode in any format anywhere on you or in the cloud... And if you lost the email, just login into viarail.ca on any mobile/laptop/loaner via the onboard wifi to display the barcode of your tix purchase. Not even dead phone worry... So many ways to "save your ass" now.

With HFR, I suspect they will just have people already on the platform, Europe/Japan/GO style.

 

[kEiThZ]

Having trains every 1 or 2 hours reduces the time you have to wait after your preferred departure time or before your preferred arrival time

That's a valuable benefit to be sure. But I consider the reduction in travel times vital to attracting new (especially business travelers). Frequency is valuable up to a point. But really, for business travelers what matter is trains at a few key times.

I therefore don't see why VIA's current pricing would not be competitive once the product has been enhanced through HFR (in fact, I think it's already very competitive, even with the far from optimal product we are able to offer today)...

I would caution that this sounds a lot like UPX thinking. Anybody taking the bus is likely price sensitive enough that they aren't going to be willing to pay 108% in higher fares to save 2 hrs. It's the rare student who can afford that. Conversely, on the other end, businesses are time sensitive enough that they would gladly spend 25-50% more to save 2-3 hrs roundtrip. The savings on overtime, compensating time off, per diem, etc. makes that trade-off worthwhile.

The two sets of travelers require different incentives. Business travelers care about travel time and frequency. Economy/tourist class passengers care about fares. Hopefully, VIA can target both effectively. Would hate to see billions spent to have trains half empty.

 

[kEiThZ]

One more fluff press-piece so that the author can stay on the payroll of the hurting Post Media. The problem is that in the virtual vacuum of information that we now have, we resort to *opinion pieces* like this to fill the void.

I wouldn't blame the reporter as much as Paul Lanagan's insistence on ideological purity with HSR and VIA's insistence that HFR be pursued at all costs. That puts them on a collision course.

 

[kEiThZ]

When we ask our passengers about what stops them from using us more often, it is frequency and punctuality what get's mentioned far more often than travel time.

That's today's passengers. For this investment to payoff VIA has to capture new market share. You have to start polling potential passengers to know why they didn't choose VIA and what would attract them to a new VIA HFR service. I suspect that fares for the econo crowd and travel time and frequency for the business crowd would feature prominently in any such wider survey.

 

[crs1026]

That's today's passengers. For this investment to payoff VIA has to capture new market share. You have to start polling potential passengers to know why they didn't choose VIA and what would attract them to a new VIA HFR service. I suspect that fares for the econo crowd and travel time and frequency for the business crowd would feature prominently in any such wider survey.

Exactly. The market that VIA needs to attract is the people who don't use it at all right now.

Unlike UPE, I can believe that a higher-fare business class service would be very profitable. I have used VIA 1 to get to Ottawa for business meetings, and even at current speeds/frequencies it's the best way to get there. You have the ability to meet and work en route, and it's about the right length to prepare for whatever you're meeting on. The market from Oshawa is pretty good also, because people in Durham have a long commute to reach Union, or Billy Bishop or Pearson, You can't have much of a business meeting in the air. Four facing VIA 1 seats with a table works great. Plus phone and wifi, and meal service. If you had even faster speed, and frequency, it would attract lots of business at a premium fare. Ottawa-Montreal is a slam dunk for this market with a 90 minute trip time.

I also have used VIA 1 to Montreal. It's really pleasant, but the longer trip time does push the limit for business. Leaving the downtown business district at close of business, without the taxi ride to Dorval, is so convenient.....but arriving home at midnight is a detraction.

I agree that the coach class fare needs to be affordable. The challenge is how you manage the Friday peak, and perhaps Sunday too. The dirt cheap fares will be on Tuesdays, but that won't help many students.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

I have used VIA 1 to get to Ottawa for business meetings, and even at current speeds/frequencies it's the best way to get there.

There's no debate on competitiveness for Ottawa with the business crowd. But I question the analysis that fare sensitive bus users will fill up the HFR's economy seats at double the fare, because they'll save 1.5 hrs each way.

I also have used VIA 1 to Montreal. It's really pleasant, but the longer trip time does push the limit for business. Leaving the downtown business district at close of business, without the taxi ride to Dorval, is so convenient.....but arriving home at midnight is a detraction.

Montreal under this HFR plan (routing via Ottawa) is going to be an interesting challenge. Time wise, it'll be better but not competitive with air. And that will make it hard to attract business travelers who live in the Pearson or Billy Bishop catchment areas. But it'll be just competitive enough that you might get the slightly less time-sensitive, and more fare-sensitive business traveler. But that means, VIA can get solid premiums for business class on this routing (Toronto-Montreal). On the other hand, getting Toronto-Montreal to under 4 hrs, can attract some of the less fare-sensitive and more time-sensitive crowd from bus users. Greyhound takes 8 hrs from Toronto to Montreal. Cutting that travel time in half will earn fare premiums in the economy crowd.

On the other hand, they can probably fill up the train in Ottawa with Ottawa-Montreal pax. So that will compensate for less ridership on Toronto-Montreal.

 

[mdrejhon]

There's no debate on competitiveness for Ottawa with the business crowd. But I question the analysis that fare sensitive bus users will fill up the HFR's economy seats at double the fare, because they'll save 1.5 hrs each way

I have a different view:
I think HFR replaces original TOM express VIA service, and the existing fares will mostly maintain pricing.

To maintain a profitability equilibrium in light of massive increase in train-seats (longer trains + high frequency), the Tuesday Fare sale sized discounts will almost certainly increase in quantity (or whichever sale mechanism they use in the future).

At most, maybe increase by ~$10 on top of an existing $37 Toronto-Ottawa Super Saver fare that are already today's "Tuesday Fare Sale" prices on the express trains (easily gotten by logging onto viarail.ca on a Tuesday a few weeks in advance, for advance booking), but that's about it. They need to fill the larger number of much longer train sets. Last-minute fare purchases will probably be, say, $20-$25 more expensive, or so. I could see $49 Tuesday Sales (or other sale mechanism) for a 2.5 hour HFR Toronto-Ottawa, still being quite popular but not overfilling the trains.

Though, first class fares, may increase significantly higher, especially if there is improved comfort on those particular coaches.

But for all categories, won't be double fare.