News   Mar 31, 2026
City Council March, 2026: Plenty of Rental, Mutli-Phase Redevelopments Approved
 1.2K     2 
News   Mar 31, 2026
Building Toronto’s Skyline Podcast Event to Feature Brad Bradford in Concord
 214     3 
News   Mar 31, 2026
Glittering Forma Rises Higher in the Entertainment District
 1.1K     0 

VIA Rail

Interesting. I met Greg Gormick once. Transit open house in Ottawa over a decade ago. Beyond that I read work from Transport Action Ontario and Transport Action Canada. Never got the impression he was that down on VIA. More that he was a realist who simply wanted government funding increased and deployed more effectively. I'm happy to be corrected though.

One thing I can't grasp is the difference between HPR and HFR. Conceptually they look the same to me.

In any event, I consider Paul Lanagan more kooky and more dangerous. I can't see Greg Gormick actively campaigning against HFR. But I can't see Paul Lanagan becoming a media darling for conservatives who are absolutely opposed to more government spending on VIA.
 
kEiThZ said:
One thing I can't grasp is the difference between HPR and HFR. Conceptually they look the same to me.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, and this may be more impression than anything, HPR does not put the same emphasis on separating freight from passenger. And HPR assumes a greater "prod" from government to the freight railways.

Some of that may be the result of focussing on lines west of Toronto, where there isn't a torn-up Havelock Sub available for dedication to passenger. HPR may be the only realistic way to improve service in that region without creating a new rail corridor (and that seems unlikely, especially in light of Oxford County's type of pushback).

In fact, HPR especially the Lynx document is just a fairly vanilla description of what can realistically be done to upgrade freight rail lines using "available" technologies and avoiding anything that looks unproven or technically ahead of the curve. I can't find anything in it to criticise, other than it tries to manouever around putting the onus on VIA and Ottawa to get on with things.....that may be more realism than cynicism, since VIA will have difficulty selling or executing a "Phase II" for HFR, until Phase I has an operating track record. Certainly Gormick is willing to look for support from stakeholders who might see Ottawa (and by extension VIA) as the "enemy".

I don't fault Gormick for showing his impatience and frustration with things - he has been pushing hard for improvements since the 1980's, after all - but I do find his proposals to consistently fall short of making points that decisionmakers actually care about. His sermons get great reviews from the choir, but that's not effective advocacy. Increasingly, I admire YDS for figuring out the language that actually resonates on Bay Street and in Ottawa, so that even if there is not buyin, there's a discussion based on something more than blind faith or vision alone. In his time at VIA, he steered the dialogue well.

That doesn't mean Gormick is wrong, but his brand of know-all and hand-wringing doesn't win enough allies. And there has indeed been collateral damage from his shots at various parties. And, while many people consult as a business and do advocacy as well, doing both hasn't helped the reception of his proposals.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
crs1026 said:
Increasingly, I admire YDS for figuring out the language that actually is needed on Bay Street and in Ottawa, so that even if there is not buyin, there's a discussion based on something more than blind faith or high level positions.
Click to expand...

This. So much this......

There's plenty of people who criticize him. But I think he was so refreshing because he actually didn't pitch the idea like a public servant. It looks like a startup pitch in many aspects. And that is very different for Crown agencies. I also like that he manoeuvered successfully to get buy in from en route communities while keeping the Lakeshore communities on board with absolute service reductions. That is good leadership, stakeholder management and communication.

I despise the like of Paul Lanagan for shitting on HFR, because this is the closest this country has actually gotten to a genuine investment in intercity rail in half a century. And that guy wants to kill it for the sake of ideological purity.
 
tmlittle said:
HSR would almost certainly skip most of the small communities served by HFR anyway, and even if the ROW wasn't used for HSR, the general terrain around there isn't great and would probably require a lot more engineering work than going closer to the lake. On the other hand, expropriation might be significantly cheaper further north.
Click to expand...

GIF of little girl captioned with "Why not both?"

It's a false dichotomy to say that it's only HFR exclusive-or HSR as many people on both sides portray it, and I think that Paul Langan would be the first to agree that we *also* need the intercity service that hits the stops in between that HSR does not. He is a fan of GO service expansion like 2WADGO on the Kitchener line, for example.

Having said that, the way Via has advertised it's HFR strategy has either been very poorly planned or very poorly explained/marketed.
Screen Shot 2020-01-13 at 12.45.18.png

Their communications say that they would only be building new, passenger-only tracks along that mostly abandoned that Toronto⟷Peterborough⟷Ottawa corridor, depicted in the yellow line in the above screencap, and not along the lakeshore corridor, or from Windsor⟷Toronto. This is just ridiculous.

TPO would become a point-to-point link trying (and probably failing) to compete with air traffic YYZ⟷YOW as it appears to only be Class 3 rail with 60mph (97km/h) speed limits that they seem to be talking about building. or at least nothing indicates class 4, 5, or 6 tracks. I'm skeptical about its potential ability to draw new riders, and I think the money would be better spent on remediating existing track and widening existing corridors to add tracks and reduce contention that way until ridership is such that it is obvious new freight corridors need to be built to remove contention completely. At this point in time, I am more sanguine about GO producing results even under PC cutbacks, than I am about VIA's HFR.
 
Bytor said:
GIF of little girl captioned with "Why not both?"

It's a false dichotomy to say that it's only HFR exclusive-or HSR as many people on both sides portray it, and I think that Paul Langan would be the first to agree that we *also* need the intercity service that hits the stops in between that HSR does not. He is a fan of GO service expansion like 2WADGO on the Kitchener line, for example.

Having said that, the way Via has advertised it's HFR strategy has either been very poorly planned or very poorly explained/marketed.
View attachment 225272
Their communications say that they would only be building new, passenger-only tracks along that mostly abandoned that Toronto⟷Peterborough⟷Ottawa corridor, depicted in the yellow line in the above screencap, and not along the lakeshore corridor, or from Windsor⟷Toronto. This is just ridiculous.

TPO would become a point-to-point link trying (and probably failing) to compete with air traffic YYZ⟷YOW as it appears to only be Class 3 rail with 60mph (97km/h) speed limits that they seem to be talking about building. or at least nothing indicates class 4, 5, or 6 tracks. I'm skeptical about its potential ability to draw new riders, and I think the money would be better spent on remediating existing track and widening existing corridors to add tracks and reduce contention that way until ridership is such that it is obvious new freight corridors need to be built to remove contention completely. At this point in time, I am more sanguine about GO producing results even under PC cutbacks, than I am about VIA's HFR.
Click to expand...

The "TPO" route will be Class 6 rail at portions rebuilt by VIA, with a maximum speed of 177km/h, because of at-grade crossings.

VIA does not own the corridors or the tracks for the current route, CN does.There is little to nothing they can do. An attempt in the 00's to add passing track/sidings for passenger lines on the existing route was both extremely costly, and futile, as CN both had to be paid to do the work (its their corridor) and overcharged, and lengthened their trains to make them unable to fit in the sidings, which were built to allow VIA trains to pass.

CN owns the corridor, the tracks etc, its their mainline, and they have little to no incentive to give VIA the right of way.

Its a non starter, and thats why the HFR route was chosen.

However milk-run service will continue along the CN corridor to those communities.
 
robmausser said:
The "TPO" route will be Class 6 rail at portions rebuilt by VIA, with a maximum speed of 177km/h, because of at-grade crossings.
Click to expand...

Where have you seen that? Nothing I have read from VIA has indicated that would be the case.

robmausser said:
VIA does not own the corridors or the tracks for the current route, CN does.There is little to nothing they can do. An attempt in the 00's to add passing track/sidings for passenger lines on the existing route was both extremely costly, and futile, as CN both had to be paid to do the work (its their corridor) and overcharged, and lengthened their trains to make them unable to fit in the sidings, which were built to allow VIA trains to pass.

CN owns the corridor, the tracks etc, its their mainline, and they have little to no incentive to give VIA the right of way.

Its a non starter, and thats why the HFR route was chosen.

However milk-run service will continue along the CN corridor to those communities.
Click to expand...

And if Ontario/Metrolinx can get CN to agree to additional tracks in a CN corridor, as seems to be the case for 2WADGO on the Kitchener line, there's no reason why that cannot happen for VIA. Especially if Via buys the land where the corridor needs to be widened.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Article in this morning's Star calls HFR a mistake and suggests Garneau change directions to support HSR instead.

www.thestar.com

Amir Barnea: If Madrid and Barcelona can build a high-speed rail connection, why can’t Toronto and Montreal?

The distance is the same, the size of the cities is the same. The only difference is that Canada is 50 per cent wealthier, writes Amir Barnea.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com
Click to expand...

Madrid and Barcelona had electrified rail between them before going to high speed rail. Stop dreaming of these useless schemes and get the basics done right.
 
Northern Light said:
Article in this morning's Star calls HFR a mistake and suggests Garneau change directions to support HSR instead.

www.thestar.com

Amir Barnea: If Madrid and Barcelona can build a high-speed rail connection, why can’t Toronto and Montreal?

The distance is the same, the size of the cities is the same. The only difference is that Canada is 50 per cent wealthier, writes Amir Barnea.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com
Click to expand...

Via Rail would gain ownership and offer higher frequency service, but that’s about it.
Click to expand...

Bullshit, I love how reporters under-represent things to support their fallacious argument.

They literally said a paragraph before that CN is slowing down VIA trains.

They can't put the two and two together and realize that travel times will increase? Doesn't take a rocket surgeon...

Different sources speculate that the ride will be merely 19 minutes faster than the current 5-hour ride.
Click to expand...

19 minutes faster than the 5 hour ride that you literally sentences before said was only on time 63% of the time?

If I am late 40% of the time, would you say that the time it takes me to get to my destination is the one that I said I would? NO.

It takes VIA more than 5 hours to get to Montreal from Toronto 40% of the time. Therefore, it really doesn't take 5 hours. It takes longer.

So its unfair to compare HFR to this pretend number.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top