VIA Rail

[nfitz]

Driving is cheaper for a family. For a couple, the case is pretty marginal.

Sure ... but what's the average number of people in a car ... 1.1?

I travel to Montreal frequently. When I take the family, we drive. When I go by myself, I usually take the train. I used to fly when plane fares were competitive with rail.

And for business? That's over $500 paid out in mileage. I certainly know of people who do indeed try and game the system and drive, to get the payment. Generally people fly or take the train.

 

[kEiThZ]

Sure ... but what's the average number of people in a car ... 1.1?

You suggested you need four people in the car for it to be cheaper. Unless you're driving an SUV or pickup, it's cheaper for two to drive.

My personal hope for HFR is that fare works out so that it's competitive for a couple to go by rail. Toronto-Ottawa: $50 roundtrip. Toronto-Montreal: $70 roundtrip.

I travel to Montreal frequently. When I take the family, we drive. When I go by myself, I usually take the train. I used to fly when plane fares were competitive with rail.

I'm the same. I really don't drive alone anymore. Not worth the fatigue or wear and tear on the car.

 

[Aylmer]

One way to make train travel more affordable for groups and families is to do like Deutsche Bahn (on their non-HSR routes): offer group tickets where each additional person costs less than a full ticket.

For example, Toronto-Ottawa might be $60 one-way, but to add other travellers, it's only an additional $10 per person. So a family of 5 could ride for an affordable and competitive $100, only $20 per person.

If we had something similar, even only on non-peak demand trains to fill seats, I think it would be highly successful, and would go a long way to making the train competitive with driving.

 

[crs1026]

I'm the same. I really don't drive alone anymore. Not worth the fatigue or wear and tear on the car.

Ditto.

Families will lean towards the car because a) the vehicle is likely useful at the destination - try to cram a family into a taxi ! and b) the vehicle serves as a store-all for all the added gear that make family trips more pleasant. I find that families don’t travel with the same “need for speed”.

Montreal-Ottawa is a short enough drive, even in traffic, that people will drive alone or with one rider as a “convenience” factor; that fatigue/attention factor isn’t the same disincentive that it is Montreal-Toronto or Ottawa-Toronto. Which is why that segment needs the most appealing trip time to tip the scales.

Other jurisdictions have no difficulty with variable fares, and I don’t see why VIA should stay away from these. A friend recently rode Providence-NYC on Amtrak. The advance fare for the first weekday Acela of the day (high business commuter demand) was $96. He left his purchase too late and found the fare had risen to $500. (He took a Regional instead). People learn to book ahead.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

You suggested you need four people in the car for it to be cheaper. Unless you're driving an SUV or pickup, it's cheaper for two to drive.

I set some boundaries - I didn't opine on two passengers. With two passengers you do have the advantage of an extra driver, which I've found can make the drive a bit faster. With two, if you only count gas, then yes, a bit cheaper. But that ignores all the wear-and-tear costs. When I used to commute longer distances, the car was always being serviced, repaired, or something. Now it goes in once a year, whether it needs it or not, and it's very unusual to have anything other than a basic service. A decade ago, when I had to claim mileage on my taxes, I broke down my costs at about 26 cents to 30 cents a km. The current federal guidelines are 58¢ per kilometre for the first 5,000 kilometres driven and 52¢ per kilometre driven after that. My employer is cheap, so we just get 52¢ - which is more than enough for someone who drives a reasonably-priced car (even if not a star ). That would be over $500 return from Montreal.

But yes, with two people, I too am more likely to choose to drive, with other factors coming into play, like convenience at the other end (will it be parked all weekend, or do I drive to the Laurentians ... what time do I want to return ... etc.)

My personal hope for HFR is that fare works out so that it's competitive for a couple to go by rail. Toronto-Ottawa: $50 roundtrip. Toronto-Montreal: $70 roundtrip.

I'd think with this type of plan, where private finance would be footing the bill, that the requirement for revenue return would make such fares exceedingly unlikely. I'd expect fares to go up, not down.

And that's part of the problem with the ill-conceived VIA plan ... is that you can't make the journey times slower AND go for higher fares. I say this as someone who worked (briefly) on VIA's transport demand modelling in the 1980s.

I'm the same. I really don't drive alone anymore. Not worth the fatigue or wear and tear on the car.

Or the driver! When I've done the entire drive myself, I'm not particularly useful the next day, these days. Fortunately, as the kids have gotten older, the driving has become more equal.

Montreal-Ottawa is a short enough drive, even in traffic.

When I worked in downtown Ottawa (briefly) in the late 1980s, we had one guy who was commuting from the west island of Montreal 2-3 times a week. It was only about 170 km, expressway almost the entire way, and he used to do it in a bit over 90 minutes (even today there's not much traffic on the 40 in Montreal, heading west from Beaconsfield at 8 AM - and Ottawa traffic never seemed bad back then, compared to Toronto or Montreal).

I'd prefer that to 60 minutes trying to get through city traffic, which many do daily.

 

[robmausser]

I think 4 hours is reasonable for HFR to be competitive with flying. Plus if you make it reasonably priced and comfortable. If they can shave that time down to 4 hours to Montreal it will be heavily used.

Flying is a pain in the ass. Getting to Pearson from Downtown is easier with the UPX but then Dorval to Montreal is a pain still.

The biggest thing will be frequency and reliability. If the dedicated tracks can make the trains have a 95% on-time performance, its absolutely worth it over flying and driving. Flying has delays and driving has traffic jams.

 

[kEiThZ]

One way to make train travel more affordable for groups and families is to do like Deutsche Bahn (on their non-HSR routes): offer group tickets where each additional person costs less than a full ticket.

For example, Toronto-Ottawa might be $60 one-way, but to add other travellers, it's only an additional $10 per person. So a family of 5 could ride for an affordable and competitive $100, only $20 per person.

If we had something similar, even only on non-peak demand trains to fill seats, I think it would be highly successful, and would go a long way to making the train competitive with driving.

It's a great idea..... If the required rate of return from their investors can support it.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'd think with this type of plan, where private finance would be footing the bill, that the requirement for revenue return would make such fares exceedingly unlikely. I'd expect fares to go up, not down.

And that's part of the problem with the ill-conceived VIA plan ... is that you can't make the journey times slower AND go for higher fares. I say this as someone who worked (briefly) on VIA's transport demand modelling in the 1980s.

I think we'll see fares that are the same or lower. I don't see how VIA could generate the 9.9 million annual ridership with higher fares. Even with a more frequent schedule and improved reliability.

Also, the marginal cost of adding seats is low. A coach is about $4 million and seats 60-70. Each seat only has to generate $24 per day to pay off capital costs of the seat... And that's assuming an outlandish 5% and 10 year amortization which I think through CIB would beat. Given that each train could do 1.5 runs from Toronto to Quebec City per day, that's really not all that difficult to accomplish.

Sure there's some optimum point beyond which adding more seats doesn't make sense. But as it stands, they'll have trains with ~285 seats leaving every hour, with just the ordered fleet. Assuming 18 trains departures per day, that's over 5000 seats in each direction, at launch. Filling that will need a different fare policy than today.

I think 4 hours is reasonable for HFR to be competitive with flying.

4 hrs to Montreal would only happen if Toronto-Montreal was split from Toronto-Ottawa. There's no way to realistically achieve that with one HFR line without investment akin to HSR levels on most segments.

And like I said earlier, there's no need for them to be competitive with air on every single market. They can get a higher premium where they are competitive. And charge lower fares where they aren't.

There's only one market where HFR would not absolutely or marginally competitive with air: Toronto-Montreal. Every other segment it beats air substantially or is close.

 

[nfitz]

Sure there's some optimum point beyond which adding more seats doesn't make sense. But as it stands, they'll have trains with ~285 seats leaving every hour, with just the ordered fleet. Assuming 18 trains departures per day, that's over 5000 seats in each direction, at launch.

18 departures a day ... I don't find that very likely.

Also they need trains for Toronto to Windsor, and have been promising service increases on London-Sarnia and Toronto-Kitchener-London for years. Not to mention the Kingston services to Ottawa, Toronto, and Montreal.

I just don't see how this works to generate the required revenue to pay for the construction. But I'm not the expert ... we'll see what the market thinks ... though a proper economic study should tell you what the market will think. Where is that study? I don't see the level of feasibility and benefit case analyses that even a relatively secretive body like Metrolinx produces!

4 hrs to Montreal would only happen if Toronto-Montreal was split from Toronto-Ottawa. There's no way to realistically achieve that with one HFR line without investment akin to HSR levels on most segments.

There is one possibility. Build the current HFR plan, and add a VIA-controlled track along the CP track from Smith Falls through Winchester to the VIA Alexandria subdivision, where VIA is already planning to run along the CP Winchester. That's 144 km of (surprisingly traight) track that avoids entering Ottawa - as savings of 33 km over the 177 km of track running through Ottawa, with some good curves. It will easily drop the travel time from 4:45 to 4:30. Maybe even to 4:15. And (not having grade separations) won't be at HSR costs.

There's only one market where HFR would not absolutely or marginally competitive with air: Toronto-Montreal. Every other segment it beats air substantially or is close.

The share with the biggest demand. Ottawa to Toronto demand has certainly grown over the years - but I haven't seen recent numbers. Is there data somewhere on what the travel demand is for the major segments?

 

[kEiThZ]

18 departures a day ... I don't find that very likely.

Hourly departures. Assume the first one at 5am. Last one at 10pm. That's 18 departures. I don't think that's anything radical for a schedule.

Also they need trains for Toronto to Windsor, and have been promising service increases on London-Sarnia and Toronto-Kitchener-London for years. Not to mention the Kingston services to Ottawa, Toronto, and Montreal.

Don't forget that HFR speeds things up substantially. A train will get to Quebec City from Toronto in about 8 hrs. If we assume 1-2 hrs to turn around on each end, in theory 22 trains should suffice for HFR. Leaving 10 for Corridor West.

I think they'll get new smaller DMU trains for the Lakeshore routes. But they also have options on their Siemens order and can buy more trains in different configs if they had to.

That's 144 km of (surprisingly traight) track that avoids entering Ottawa

The question remains. Does bypassing Ottawa wreck the business case because you're not providing consistent hourly service everywhere while running more trains. I would argue hourly Toronto-Ottawa and Ottawa-Montreal is as important as Toronto-Montreal. Splitting the route up to improve TM won't help if you lose pax everywhere else.

I just don't see how this works to generate the required revenue to pay for the construction. But I'm not the expert ... we'll see what the market thinks ... though a proper economic study should tell you what the market will think. Where is that study? I don't see the level of feasibility and benefit case analyses that even a relatively secretive body like Metrolinx produces!

The study had just started. We'll see in 2 years I guess. But if you have 10 million riders at launch, I'd argue that you'll be able to make enough to pay down the construction costs, if you're getting favourable loan terms thanks to an effective sovereign guarantee for your debt. If VIA is paying 10% to finance it, I'd be against them. I'd they're paying 2-3%, the business case would be decent. And the last CIB loan was 1%.

 

[nfitz]

Hourly departures. Assume the first one at 5am. Last one at 10pm. That's 18 departures. I don't think that's anything radical for a schedule.

I don't really see departures before 6 AM. And I don't see even trains terminating at Ottawa departing Union at 10 pm. But okay ..., I see where you are coming from.

The question remains. Does bypassing Ottawa wreck the business case because you're not providing consistent hourly service everywhere while running more trains. I would argue hourly Toronto-Ottawa and Ottawa-Montreal is as important as Toronto-Montreal. Splitting the route up to improve TM won't help if you lose pax everywhere else.

Good questions - and part of what the study needs to find out. Does 4:45 even allow for a stop in Ottawa - I'd assume they'd be running non-stop to achieve that - and running separate Toronto to Ottawa to Toronto to Montreal services - but I'm pulling that out of my imagination.

 

[robmausser]

Hourly departures. Assume the first one at 5am. Last one at 10pm. That's 18 departures. I don't think that's anything radical for a schedule.



Don't forget that HFR speeds things up substantially. A train will get to Quebec City from Toronto in about 8 hrs. If we assume 1-2 hrs to turn around on each end, in theory 22 trains should suffice for HFR. Leaving 10 for Corridor West.

I think they'll get new smaller DMU trains for the Lakeshore routes. But they also have options on their Siemens order and can buy more trains in different configs if they had to.



The question remains. Does bypassing Ottawa wreck the business case because you're not providing consistent hourly service everywhere while running more trains. I would argue hourly Toronto-Ottawa and Ottawa-Montreal is as important as Toronto-Montreal. Splitting the route up to improve TM won't help if you lose pax everywhere else.



The study had just started. We'll see in 2 years I guess. But if you have 10 million riders at launch, I'd argue that you'll be able to make enough to pay down the construction costs, if you're getting favourable loan terms thanks to an effective sovereign guarantee for your debt. If VIA is paying 10% to finance it, I'd be against them. I'd they're paying 2-3%, the business case would be decent. And the last CIB loan was 1%.

I really wish they would keep the Seimens for elsewhere and procure a tilting trainset that is designed to navigate the many curves the Peterborough routing will have.

The new Amtrak Acelas have special tilt system and wheels/bogies that will increase speeds in turns and shorten travel times for example.

Next-Generation Acela Rail Cars Taking Shape in N.Y. Factory

The first of 28 new Amtrak Acela train sets are being built in upstate New York, part of a $2 billion fleet of high-speed trains due to begin running from Washington, D.C., to Boston two years from now.

www.wsj.com

The trains will be built to tilt up to 6.3 degrees, allowing trains to run faster in curves and save energy by avoiding braking for some turns.

While we will be most likely using diesels on the HFR route initially, the same tech should be used for this new HFR route to squeeze every last minute out of the trip.

 

[crs1026]

And like I said earlier, there's no need for them to be competitive with air on every single market. They can get a higher premium where they are competitive. And charge lower fares where they aren't.

There's only one market where HFR would not absolutely or marginally competitive with air: Toronto-Montreal. Every other segment it beats air substantially or is close.

A realistic goal would be to retain the current Toronto-Montreal ridership with some slow growth over time. Spread across the improved hourly Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal service, that’s enough seats filled to cover a lot of the base operating costs. I continue to hope that VIA can afford a couple of stretches of grade separated, “Demonstration” 120-125 running that might make the T-O-M timing similar to today's actual direct T-M express.

The idea of running along the Winchester is an interesting one. There have been on and off rumours about CP singletracking that line, almost as many as CP doubletracking and CTC'ing to Cambridge. VIA might not need to add its own track throughout. However, if one is ready to add 144 km of new third track, try a head to head comparison about putting that much third track on the Kingston Sub, and thus serving the Lakeshore, versus putting it on the Winchester to only serve through Montreal traffic.

- Paul

 

[hw621]

when comparing travel time between driving and train, I would like to remind that driving time is usually door to door, while for train one has to figure out connection between the station and the final destination. That usually adds another hour, or even two.

 

[kEiThZ]

Don't forget that HFR speeds things up substantially. A train will get to Quebec City from Toronto in about 8 hrs. If we assume 1-2 hrs to turn around on each end, in theory 22 trains should suffice for HFR. Leaving 10 for Corridor West.

@Urban Sky You're better at this. For a hypothetical HFR from Toronto to Quebec City, with hourly departures, how many trains would be needed? My very rough ballpark says 18-22.

I don't really see departures before 6 AM. And I don't see even trains terminating at Ottawa departing Union at 10 pm. But okay ..., I see where you are coming from.

A 5am departure from Union puts you in Ottawa at 8-830 and Montreal by 10. Is that valuable or would those pax just fly? Need some demand information for that. You could be right about a 6am start.

On the flip side, a 10pm departure gets you to Ottawa at 1-130. Late, but not substantially beyond today's late arrival. Maybe 9pm last otherwise.

Does 4:45 even allow for a stop in Ottawa

I would think it does. At the speeds they are proposing and the distances. It makes sense.