VIA Rail

[kEiThZ]

I vehemently disagree with Greg Gormick's comments.

Yes. The Toronto-Montreal market is important. But it's ridiculous to separate that from Toronto-Ottawa when considering a rail project. Which is why previous proposals for high speed rail have not. Going through Ottawa does not even add 100 km to the total distance. If we had decent speed, that would not add more than 30 mins.

I am going to argue that VIA is being overly optimistic and that Toronto-Ottawa will be 3 hrs. And that Toronto-Montreal will be 4.25-4.5 hrs (as opposed to 3:45 pledged). If that's the case, the project is still worthwhile. It would divert most bus traffic on the Toronto-Montreal route. Most buses are 5.75-6.5 hrs and prices are from $40-$60. It would gain modal share against driving too, since it's faster than driving. And for Ottawa, it would actually reduce a ton of flying, even with a 3 hr trip time.

What's needed here is some kind of hybrid proposal. Put in the extra billion or two and boost the speed enough to get Toronto-Montreal through Ottawa down to about 3 hrs. With the right fares, that would actually put a dent in Toronto-Montreal flights.

And on that note, this is a debate sorely needed in Canada. When it comes to carbon emissions and climate change, cutting aviation emissions in the Quebec-Windsor corridor is actually low hanging fruit. That alone would justify serious investment in HSR and public transit. The corridor has density unlike anywhere else in Canada. HSR would be a massive economic booster while actually cutting emissions at the same time.

Yet, as an investment the proposal will never really pan out. With HFR, the sales pitch seems to be $150 million in annual subsidies for corridor service can be removed. With interest and presuming subsidies increasing with time, it would take 40-50 years to justify HFR. If it's looked at as an investment to improve connectivity and reduce emissions, than the justification improves. And the government needs to get on with making that case.

 

[nfitz]

For any questions regarding HFR, I refer to the current Infographic on the VIA Rail website:

Source: http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/governance-and-reports/dedicated-tracks

Where did they get $4 billion from? The 2010 Metrolinx study from Patrick O'Connor, at Hatch Mott MacDonald said it would cost $1.5 billion just to go the 120 km from Union to Peterborough so as not to impact CP freight activities. And that's all existing track, without any curve upgrades for faster service.

It's over 750 km from there to Quebec City. That's 6 times the distance, a nightmare in Montreal, at least 2 major river crossings, many km of abandoned alignment, that won't be easy to expropriate. And yet there's only $2.5 billion left to do it?

Any engineer who signs off on those numbers, should have their licence stripped by PEO or OIQ. It clearly doesn't pass the BS test.

 

[crs1026]

If we had decent speed, that would not add more than 30 mins.

True. The question is whether VIA can actually improve the speed given the modest capital envelope they are seeking. If they can, then Mr Gormick can just pull down the window shades as the train passes through Ottawa.

I am going to argue that VIA is being overly optimistic and that Toronto-Ottawa will be 3 hrs. And that Toronto-Montreal will be 4.25-4.5 hrs (as opposed to 3:45 pledged). If that's the case, the project is still worthwhile.

I would put money on Toronto-Ottawa being 3:20 to 3:30. And Ottawa-Montreal no better than 1:40. That puts Toronto-Montreal back over five hours. Add in last-mile time at either end, and the improvement over driving gets pretty slim, especially if it's a multiple passenger in one car comparison. We need both the right fare and the time saved to woo motorists. Five hours won't woo air travellers, either.

What's needed here is some kind of hybrid proposal. Put in the extra billion or two and boost the speed enough to get Toronto-Montreal through Ottawa down to about 3 hrs. With the right fares, that would actually put a dent in Toronto-Montreal flights.

I still come back to triple tracking on the Kingston Sub, with sidings so that the line is a 2-track freight line and a dedicated single track passenger line, with added sidings so passenger trains meet each other without crossing paths with freights. And a new bypass from Kingston to Smiths Falls, partly on the old Canadian Northern line. That route has more potential for speed, and it avoids the costly new entry into Toronto. And it utilises the money that has been invested in grade separating that line. The only obstacle is getting CN to buy in.

And on that note, this is a debate sorely needed in Canada. When it comes to carbon emissions and climate change, cutting aviation emissions in the Quebec-Windsor corridor is actually low hanging fruit.

The VIA chart talks about removing cars from the road, but I bet the comparison between the carbon emission from a single airline seat Toronto - Montreal, versus a train seat on the same route, is pretty compelling.


- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

but I bet the comparison between the carbon emission from a single airline seat Toronto - Montreal, versus a train seat on the same route, is pretty compelling.

The Guardian has done the math:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/carbon-emissions-per-transport-type

If you were to take an average domestic flight rather than a high-speed electric train, you'd be personally responsible for 29 times as much carbon dioxide.

Mind you, a Porter turboprop is fuel efficient. But still, we're talking HSR emitting maybe 5-10% per km of what a turboprop does.

This is why I really get disheartened with a lot of these discussions. We have governments that say they are serious about climate change. And yet ignore some of the most clear cut solutions there are to cutting emissions.

 

[steveintoronto]

Just offer CN $4B lump sum plus some share of net revenue to upgrade the Kingston and Drummondville lines, instead of spending $5B for the HFR route.

Well if that makes such good sense...then why aren't CN offering it?

 

[crs1026]

Well if that makes such good sense...then why aren't CN offering it?

Well, because VIA hasn't played its cards yet. Let them divulge the business case, and pin down the amount the government is willing to spend to build the HFR route. Then people can make counter proposals.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

Well, because VIA hasn't played its cards yet.

Jezuz...how many cards does VIA have to play? CN and CP have had their chance. They're absolutely free to make an offer any time. If not, then fug 'em. How often do you need to get the shid kicked out of you looking for love to realize it ain't gonna happen?

VIA is forging her own way, and any time anyone can make a better offer, then go right ahead. In the event, I think there will be one, then the usual suspects will retort, "oh, it's not vanilla, and the socks don't match, and I coulda done it better, and waahhhh!..."

And Canada wants a free trade deal with China? You're not going to like how this plays out...

 

[SaugeenJunction]

I didn't realize that the recent article on VIA HFR got an entire folio in Friday's Globe and Mail print edition. Talk about a great way to get the word out about the project.

 

[steveintoronto]

I didn't realize that the recent article on VIA HFR got an entire folio in Friday's Globe and Mail print edition. Talk about a great way to get the word out about the project.

Indeed, and it's just my projection, but I have every reason to believe there will be more. And not only on VIA HFR per-se, but on the bigger picture: Inward investment into rail (including passenger) infrastructure in this nation, and whether that involves the InfraBank or not, and the hows and whys of that.

BBD is in a lot of hot water at this time, but their new international reputation (to be more correct, their newly *overt* reputation) presages the tarnished reputations of a number of major competitors who are gaining a hold in North Am, so that the claim of "Well, we're Cdn and our companies are considered the most reputable for honest practices in the world" can no longer be touted as a reason for not allowing other *far more competitive* corps from doing business in this nation. (See: https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016 ) And whether HFR goes through the InfraBank or not starts to become rather moot as that pertains to HFR being built. It is being eyed. And if Cdns won't invest? Well.....some dare to tread heavily where others are too timid...It's a very opportune investment. The Globe and Mail recognizes that, albeit with caveats.

Credit to Bill Curry, the author of this and many other excellent articles on the IB. It's worthy to note he's one of the Globe's 'Parliamentary' correspondents.

 

[Urban Sky]

[...]I'm talking about Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal.[...]

Any comparison of capital costs is meaningless unless it refers to the same geographical scope. Since you used a VIA figure which referred to Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec, I provided the corresponding Ecotrain figures to allow such comparison...

When it comes to carbon emissions and climate change, cutting aviation emissions in the Quebec-Windsor corridor is actually low hanging fruit.

In order to tilt the rail-air share between Toronto and Montreal in favour of rail, which would require a reduction of the travel time towards the magical 3 hours, you would need to increase the average speed from currently 100-120 km/h to 180 km/h (540 km distance divided by 3 hours), which absolutely necessitates the creation of a grade-separated and mostly dedicated greenfield corridor in order to reach speeds in excess of 200-240 km/h (125-150 mph):

Source: FRA (2011, p.20)

Just out of interest, if you consider a significant reduction of air travel a "low hanging fruit" (i.e. a cheap, fast and cost-effective path to reducing transport-related carbon emissions in the Quebec-Windsor corridor), then what would you consider a "high-hanging fruit" (i.e. a more expensive, slower and less cost-effective path to do the same)? And how would you call the path of getting intercity car drivers out of their cars? "Already half-rotten fruits lying on the grass"???

I'm still skeptical that VIA can get to Quebec City for $4 billion.

It's over 750 km from there to Quebec City. That's 6 times the distance, a nightmare in Montreal, at least 2 major river crossings, many km of abandoned alignment, that won't be easy to expropriate. And yet there's only $2.5 billion left to do it?

Any engineer who signs off on those numbers, should have their licence stripped by PEO or OIQ. It clearly doesn't pass the BS test.

It certainly makes for more meaningful discussions if people look at projects with some healthy scepticism (and I wish there was more of that in all those delusion-fueled discussions about the Hyperloop!), but as long as you have no access to those studies and we can't discuss them here in public, your conclusions are mere speculation, as the assumptions and assessments made by the engineering firms analyzing this project might differ quite significantly from those made by yourself and with the very limited amount of information available to you at this point. Also, would you mind if I asked you about your own qualifications and expertise which allows you to contest the qualification of (other?) engineers? Otherwise, can we just wait until the studies are released and become available for our scrutiny before we entirely dismiss every probability that their assessments and conclusions could be realistic, methodologically sound and at the same time: supportive of the project and its claimed benefits?

 

[kEiThZ]

Any comparison of capital costs is meaningless unless it refers to the same geographical scope. Since you used a VIA figure which referred to Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec, I provided the corresponding Ecotrain figures to allow such comparison...

@Urban Sky Johannes, my apologies. I hope I didn't come off as abrasive here. I am of course a huge fan of your analysis.

Our difference lies in how we view this project. I view Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal as paramount. Quebec City to me is a nice to have....in Phase 2. Quebec City should be addressed the same time we address Kitchener and London.

Just out of interest, if you consider a significant reduction of air travel a "low hanging fruit" (i.e. a cheap, fast and cost-effective path to reducing transport-related carbon emissions in the Quebec-Windsor corridor), then what would you consider a "high-hanging fruit" (i.e. a more expensive, slower and less cost-effective path to do the same)? And how would you call the path of getting intercity car drivers out of their cars? "Already half-rotten fruits lying on the grass"???

There are two major contextual differences to consider here. First, aviation emissions per km are higher than car emissions per km. Particularly in a multi-occupant scenario. Next, is the question of where modal share gains have the biggest environmenal payoffs. In my view, HSR could capture far more modal share from aviation than say HFR might from driving.

I do believe HFR will be wildly successful. Largely because I think it'll induce or rather address a lot of repressed demand. But I question how many cars it'll actually take off the road. Especially in months where the weather isn't too bad.

But like on many point in this discussion we are going back just what's in the press.

It certainly makes for more meaningful discussions if people look at projects with some healthy scepticism (and I wish there was more of that in all those delusion-fueled discussions about the Hyperloop!), but as long as you have no access to those studies and we can't discuss them here in public, your conclusions are mere speculation, as the assumptions and assessments made by the engineering firms analyzing this project might differ quite significantly from those made by yourself and with the very limited amount of information available to you at this point. Also, would you mind if I asked you about your own qualifications and expertise which allows you to contest the qualification of (other?) engineers? Otherwise, can we just wait until the studies are released and become available for our scrutiny before we entirely dismiss every probability that their assessments and conclusions could be realistic, methodologically sound and at the same time: supportive of the project and its claimed benefits?

I believe nfitz is an engineer too.

I'm an aerospace engineer. So I won't comment on the civil works portion. But I am skeptical of the current cost projects simply because, like niftz pointed out, other assessments have said it'll be expensive to reach Peterborough. And from there we're looking at some very expensive track to get up and running. And if I'm not mistaken, the $4 billion also includes the costs of trainsets and stations. I was on the fence on $4 billion getting them to Montreal but I could various arrangements with Metrolinx and AMT working out to make that happen. $4 billion from Toronto to Quebec City really seems a stretch.

But you're right. None of us have access to those internal project reports. And this is why I keep saying, I am most curious to see what the CIB and the investment consortium they put together say. They're best placed to judge the business case.

 

[Urban Sky]

@Urban Sky Johannes, my apologies. I hope I didn't come off as abrasive here. I am of course a huge fan of your analysis.

No offence taken and therefore no apology needed.

The only reason I quoted you before the last paragraph was to contrast between healthy scepticism and sentencing someone before having been able to view most of the evidence. I recall very well how simple and self-evident planning a game-changing fix for VIA sounded as long as I was only dreaming of working for them: My first post in the Quebec-Ontario HSR Study thread and my Bachelor Thesis (briefly discussed in an article I wrote on my LinkedIn profile) are testimonials of that time and the assumptions and extrapolations I made from the insufficient amount of data available to me. Unfortunately, I no longer can contribute as freely as I could back then, but I'm very happy to read that you appreciate that little of my own analyses I can share here...

 

[kEiThZ]

@Urban Sky

So looking at the chart above would I be correct to infer that VIA would be aiming for Tier 1C? If they need to get to Ottawa in 2.5 hrs from Toronto, given the number of stops they have, that would basically be speed they need (~200 kph = 125 mph). So basically that would get them off the hook for most grade separations. And that would get the cost down there.

I think most of us are wondering how the curvy nature of the corridor will impact costs. I know I am. I always figured that VIA would find a way to avoid most of the costs of grade separation. I figured the goal would be to build a corridor that can be upgraded. Add grade separations as required down the road and boost speeds on operating sections. But to do that, the track has to be aligned in a way that's conducive to operating at higher speeds.

If not the above, we're talking about an alignment that can handle 180-200 kph. That would seem rather expensive to me. If I assume $800 million for trainsets and station works, that means to me, about $3.2 billion left to spend on track from Toronto to Quebec City. About $4 million per km on average. Anybody know of similar rail works in Canada or the US through rural areas? Were they able to achieve similar costs?

 

[crs1026]

@Urban Sky
About $4 million per km on average. Anybody know of similar rail works in Canada or the US through rural areas? Were they able to achieve similar costs?

The closest comparator that I would put forward is the relaying of the Newmarket Sub from Bradford to Barrie. I have gone hunting for that figure without success. That project involved both track replacement and construction of a yard at Barrie, so even if I had the number I'm not sure you can divide the cost by the number of kms of line. From rough memory it came out to more like $20M per mile. That work put down new rail and ties on a roadbed that was largely intact and not degraded by a long period of abandonment. The line remained unsignalled and speeds remain in the 75-80 mph range.

The Auditor General report on VIA reported the cost of adding the triple track to the Kingston Sub as being about $10M per km. That includes extension of culverts, and laying of a whole new subgrade, and signalling. My theory is that the Havelock Sub would need this level of subgrade improvement and culvert/drainage restoration, pretty much as if the line had never been graded, but I defer to the pro's in that.

I found one earlier press release which indicated that adding two sidings to the Smiths Falls Sub and signalling them cost $10M in 2008. There had been lots of earlier work to undercut and reballast the line and upgrade the rail and do tie replacement, but that was in a much earlier era. Same with the Brockville Subdivision. Again, those were in-service lines that had not deteriorated for 40+ years. Those new sidings were each only a half mile long.

Bottom line, this layman would expect closer to $10M per km than $4M.

Edit - see also this for the Chatham Sub - $17M just to signal 56 kms of line, add one new siding, and replace about 13,000 ties (there 2,000 + ties per mile of line, so that was far less than full replacement) and this for Ottawa-Montreal upgrades and this and this for the Brockville Sub.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

[...] So looking at the chart above would I be correct to infer that VIA would be aiming for Tier 1C? If they need to get to Ottawa in 2.5 hrs from Toronto, given the number of stops they have, that would basically be speed they need (~200 kph = 125 mph). [...]

I can't comment on HFR, but comparing the top results of the Google searches for "VIA Rail 110 mph" and "VIA Rail 125 mph" might be instructive. As for travel times and whether the future fleet is included in the capital cost figures or extra, I can only refer to the most recent graphic on the HFR page on the VIA website:

http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/governance-and-reports/dedicated-tracks

PS: There is a separate page on VIA's fleet renewal program: http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/governance-and-reports/fleet-renewal-program