VIA Rail

[crs1026]

I completed my admittedly amateurish but hopefully interesting look at the Havelock route curves and speeds.

The good news is, the result was far more positive than I would have predicted. My notional end to end time, not providing for time in meets, stations, contingency, etc was 3 hours 37 minutes. If one adds dwell time and some padding, one can certainly have confidence that the timing is not going to be worse than today. An overall speed of 69.5 mph is not too shabby.

My calc came in some distance above the cited 3 hours 15 minutes, however. This is not surprising because a) my assumptions were deliberately conservative and b) it's a pretty crude spreadsheet.

The big things I learned are
a) The number of curves, and the small number of seconds gained by straightening any one curve, suggest that only a few judicious tweaks to the trackage may be affordable and justifiable
b) I made only a partial effort to include what I will call "futile sprints"... that is, assuming that trains would accelerate wherever possible between curves to whatever peak speed could be attained before braking to comply with the next curve. That only seemed to glean seconds per short tangent segment, and not minutes.
c) If the sprinting is the solution, tilting trains don't help with that.
d) The assumptions around banking and curve speed may be what differentiates this calculation from the "real" story

Here is the high level of my data. Rather than debating the fine points, it might be worth just looking at the timing for individual segments and see if my times differ from others' opinions consistently across all parts of the route - which would suggest my assumptions are simply off base - or am I most off in any particular portion of the route.

- Paul

 

[ManyQuestions]

The fastest scheduled travel time between Ottawa and Montreal was already 1:35 a few years back (see train 36 in the May 2004 schedule). What makes you doubt that 1:33 could be achieved after investing $91.5 million in that segment?

Thanks for pointing this out. I had thought that I read an old VIA HFR document that indicated a target of 1:10. I cannot find it after a quick search so I must have either recalled information incorrectly. Furthermore, the amount of early arrivals I've experienced on that segment suggests that there would be significant benefit from simply reducing congestion and that this would be greater than maximum speed increases. However, I'm still curious about the viability of constructing a new more direct line along the CP right of way between the diamond north of Saint-Polycarpe and Vaudreuil. I guess I'll need to do some research when I have time....

Edit: I think I obtained the estimate of a 1:10 Ottawa-Montreal time by subtracting 3:15 from 4:30 given that those were the two times listed on the HFR site despite the latter being the current Ottawa-Toronto time and not the proposed Montreal-Toronto time...

 

[kEiThZ]

I completed my admittedly amateurish but hopefully interesting look at the Havelock route curves and speeds.

The good news is, the result was far more positive than I would have predicted. My notional end to end time, not providing for time in meets, stations, contingency, etc was 3 hours 37 minutes. If one adds dwell time and some padding, one can certainly have confidence that the timing is not going to be worse than today. An overall speed of 69.5 mph is not too shabby.

My calc came in some distance above the cited 3 hours 15 minutes, however. This is not surprising because a) my assumptions were deliberately conservative and b) it's a pretty crude spreadsheet.

Bravo! Good work.

Kinda goes to show how much of a barebones proposal this is. They really aren't doing anything to cut travel times. Just building functional track and relying on the lack of congestion to make it attractive. Personally I think they should forego electrification and spend the $2B electrification would cost on a better corridor that cuts 10-20 mins from Ottawa-Montreal and 15-30 mins from Toronto-Ottawa.

 

[roger1818]

It's natural to wonder about a connection between the first and second largest cities in Canada.

There is a difference between wondering about something and obsessing over it.

Also, the rail demand is low because the service sucks (relatively). It's not all that competitive with a car and costs a ton. Compare air and bus travel between Toronto-Ottawa and Toronto-Montreal and you'll get a very different picture of demand.

Except whatever comparison about travel times and distance between driving and taking the train on the Montreal-Toronto route, you can say the same about Ottawa-Toronto (if anything, Ottawa-Toronto is worse).

VIA does well on Toronto-Ottawa because a fifth of the trip is on track that VIA owns.

It is actually closer to 1/4, but even still, while helpful, it isn't a game changer as 3/4 of the travel is still on CN's mainline. If you think VIA owning "a fifth" of the track is making such a huge difference, what do you think owning near 100% of it will have?

Will be interesting to see how much a higher frequency and marginally shorter travel time (4:45 vs 5:04 average today) will improve demand on the Toronto-Montreal segment.

The higher frequency (as well as improved reliability) will be the key. As Yves Desjardins-Siciliano said in the in the Winter 2016 issue of Interchange:

For example, from 2000 to 2011, VIA Rail ran five trains a day between Ottawa and Toronto. During that 11-year period, ridership increased by 25 per cent – or approximately 2 per cent each year. In 2012, it added two frequencies and the next two years saw a jump in ridership of 36 per cent.

So increasing frequency can have a dramatic effect on ridership.

Population of Ottawa : 812,000
Population of Montreal : 1,600,000

It may not be an apples to apples comparison, but which end point would seem to have more market potential for a train service from Toronto?

Population is one factor, but there are others that also have a significant effect on demand. Some other factors are:

• While both Ottawa and Montreal are bilingual, Ottawa is more English (same as Toronto) but Montreal is more French,
• Ottawa is the National Capital, making it a more significant destination,
• Toronto is Ottawa's provincial capital, but not Montreal's (making Toronto a more significant destination from Ottawa than from Montreal),
• Ottawa is about 20% closer than Montreal is to Toronto, making land based travel more competitive.

What’s wrong with wanting the trip to Montreal to be as marketable as the Ottawa service?

There is nothing wrong with desiring it, but as I said, why obsess over it?

The metro area comparisons are even more drastic.

While I agree (and would argue that metro populations are more appropriate to use) as I said above, there is more to the issue than just population.

Because Montreal-Toronto is the route pair with the greatest amount of air passenger volume annually. If you go by the last time Statcan actually released route pair volume data (in 1998), about ~10% of all domestic passenger volume was Montreal-Toronto. A naive calculation which takes that route share and multiplies by current domestic air travel, which in 2018 was about 90 million annual passengers, gives a route pair volume of ~9 million annual passengers. Going from a 5 hour train trip to a 4h40min train trip doesn't move the needle to win over that market share.

I assume you mean this report? That is only looking at air travel, which is a small minority of travel in the TOM corridor. In the same issue of Interchange, Yves Desjardins-Siciliano said:

Today, 87 per cent of travel between Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal is by car, six per cent is by plane and five per cent is by train. Desjardins-Siciliano thinks a dedicated passenger-rail track between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal is the only way to increase the rail’s share over the car.

Also, your "naive calculation" is off by an order of magnitude. The report I found says only "1.2 million passengers travelled between Toronto and Montreal" by air in 1997. I expect that is origin-destination pairs, and ignores those connecting to other flights. Regardless, it is likely better for VIA to try and compete with the 87% who drive rather than the 6 percent who fly between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal.

 

[SFO-YYZ]

You also have to factor stuff like major events that affect travel, namely reading week when university students return home. As someone who currently goes to uni in Ottawa, you basically have to order Via tickets a good 4 weeks ahead of time just so there is space on the train because they sell out fast, and in turn you're likely going to use an alternative like Greyhound, which not only is it far more expensive, its also far less enjoyable than the train. Unfortunately, there is no way in hell VIA HFR is completed by the time I graduate, but if VIA HFR existed today, the impact it would have especially during reading week is insane.

Not only uni students, but a large segment of corporate travel is based on last minute bookings (many times same day bookings). Pre-Covid, I used to travel at least twice per month between Toronto and Montreal, and about 1/4 of my trips are made on VIA because

1) downtown to downtown proximity (I could easily leave downtown TO office at 4:10 and be in my seat by 4:30)
2) price - most corporate travelers aren't as price sensitive, but sometimes it still makes a huge cost/expense difference between VIA and say Porter or AC (which can easily run between $600-800 for a round trip flex ticket between YUL and YTZ).
3) comfort/ability to work - the somewhat longer train journey often compensates itself with the ability to get lots and lots of work done on the train (wifi, free booze in business, decently good hot meal)

I think HFR will make a real difference for the corporate traveler segment.

 

[crs1026]

There is nothing wrong with desiring it, but as I said, why obsess over it?

A Torontonian, an Ottawan, and a Montrealler go into a bar. (This is a scenario, not a bad joke.)

They sit at a table and discuss how they will keep in touch with each other, and with their friends. The Torontonian and the Ottawan agree that the train is great and they will use it often. The Ottawan and the Montrealler agree it works for them as well when they visit each other. But when the Torontonian and the Montrealler talk about visiting, they sigh and say, the train just doesn't cut it, it's just simper to drive. And fly now and then.

Then they all go home and tell their friends and family what they agree on. 800,000 Ottawans hear a good news story, but 2,600,000 Torontonians and 1,600,000 Montreallers hear a mixed message.

My point: If VIA cannot deliver a consistent value proposition across all customers between Windsor and Quebec City - the most populous and densely developed region of the country - then whatever attractive net income the Ottawa-Toronto segment produces will not change public behavior, especially around getting people out of their cars. Or with respect to public support for further investment towards true HSR.

Toronto-Ottawa is one sustainable segment, certainly... but it is not the prize. Enough people everywhere in Ontario and Quebec need to see a benefit gained in order to secure their support.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

I think HFR will make a real difference for the corporate traveler segment.

I've been saying this all along. HFR cuts down the rail penalty on downtown to downtown travel to less than an hour on Toronto-Ottawa. The market for corporate travel to save 1 hr each way is entirely restricted to a segment of same day return travelers. I think Toronto-Ottawa all but gets reduced to feeder service for Pearson. Porter won't see growth in this market again.

At 4:45 for Toronto-Montreal though, I really have my doubts about getting much more corporate travel share. With Porter and REM, downtown to downtown is about 3 hrs by air. HFR reduces the rail penalty to 2 hrs (assuming 15 mins pre-boarding). That's substantial even for non-same day return. I think corporate travel will largely be price sensitive travelers like yourself, who don't want to pay last minute air fare. The closer they get to reducing that rail penalty to 1 hr (like Ottawa), the more they'll capture of the corporate travel market. Even cutting 30 mins would go a long way here. The added benefit also being they grow share in the Toronto-Ottawa market too.

 

[kEiThZ]

But when the Torontonian and the Montrealler talk about visiting, they sigh and say, the train just doesn't cut it, it's just simper to drive. And fly now and then.

This is an important point. When DJS said he wants to prioritize compete with driving, I believed him. But I fail to see how saving 1-1.5 hrs is substantial enough to convert lots of drivers. VIA is probably already winning over somebody driving alone. So at those trip times, it has to win over multiple-occupancy car travelers with competitive fares. And get the odd price-sensitive corporate traveler.

They'll get the bump in ridership from the improved schedule, massive increase in reliability and slight improvements in trip times. Toronto-Montreal will basically see the kind of ridership that Toronto-Ottawa sees today. That's a gain. But I don't see that as really transformative.

 

[crs1026]

Personally I think they should forego electrification and spend the $2B electrification would cost on a better corridor that cuts 10-20 mins from Ottawa-Montreal and 15-30 mins from Toronto-Ottawa.

Definitely. I am not an expert in aviation fuel consumption, but it seems that if one can replace two intermediate size 100-passenger airplanes with one 200-passenger diesel train, the carbon saved probably is braggable and sufficient to credibly contribute to national targets. While electrification is sexy green stuff, a carbon-producing diesel HFR is likely green enough, and that money can be better spent on better track..

An example of how that money might be used is the discussion we had earlier about a Sharbot Lake bypass. If one were to build the proposed bypass as a new line along Highway 7, it would replace about 23 miles of the old line with about 20-ish miles of new line. The curve argument says that that section, which is one of the curviest, would optimistically take 21 minutes to cross. But a new 20 mile section, capable of 100 mph, would be 12 minutes. That's a substantial time savings. Let's assume that the refurb cost of the old line is $5M per mile and the cost of a brand new line would be twice that. Is $100M additional to save 9 minutes a good deal? For investors running a barebones line, perhaps not. But as a slice of the electrification envelope, diverted to faster track, it might well be. I was skeptical about the merits of the Sharbot Lake opposition until I did the time comparison. A bypass might be money well spent, especially if (dreaming perhaps) there were provincial-federal cost sharing on a joint highway/rail corridor. Just one example.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

As per the Globe and Mail article, they budgeted $2.1B for Toronto-Ottawa. And $91.5M for Ottawa-Montreal. Electrification is supposed to be $2B. The way I look at it, if they spend that $2B to cut 10-15 mins from Ottawa-Montreal (making that commutable) and another 20-30 mins from Toronto-Ottawa, that would save more carbon from diverting air travelers and drivers than electrification would. Would probably generate more revenue and operational cost savings than fuel and maintenance cost savings from electrification.

I'm starting to think electrification has a better case when there's substantial traffic (20+ departures each way) or high speed rail. Doesn't seem to make sense for 15 trains a day, looking at the opportunity cost. If they are concerned about emissions in urban areas, just add battery packs.

 

[kEiThZ]

This whole discussion reminds me of the Ottawa LRT debates. They value engineered themselves out of a heavy rail system. But then built a virtual subway network with LRVs that has given them all kinds of issues. Spending that extra $100M and ruling out street-running entirely would have saved them a whole lot of headaches right now.

 

[kEiThZ]

I can understand the argument against HSR. What I can't understand is the resistance to marginal investment or at least studying them to make an informed decision. Don't want to build a $14B HSR line? I can understand that. But that shouldn't mean the only alternative is a $3B HFR line (TOM portion of the pie). Surely there should be some understanding of, "The sweet spot is at x. And every $y million we put in gets us z% closer to X."

I understand DJS' criticism of HSR. It is expensive. And less accessible to the middle class. But I'm not sure that building a roller coaster through the woods is necessarily the only alternative. I hope they publish their analysis. I'm eager to see if they considered trade off or nominal travel time targets at all. I would love to know what TM at 4.5 hrs, 4.25 hrs and 4 hrs would have cost to achieve.

Also, when they first announced the project it was Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal for $4B. Then they added Quebec City. The advertised price tag stayed near $4B. And the G&M article says $1.14B for MQ. Leaves me wondering if they cheaped out on TO to stay in the envelope. I wish they would just spend $4B and build TOM first and then spend $1.5B on the MQ phase later.

 

[roger1818]

Definitely. I am not an expert in aviation fuel consumption, but it seems that if one can replace two intermediate size 100-passenger airplanes with one 200-passenger diesel train, the carbon saved probably is braggable and sufficient to credibly contribute to national targets. While electrification is sexy green stuff, a carbon-producing diesel HFR is likely green enough, and that money can be better spent on better track..

I am not so sure. There are many reasons to promote rail travel in Canada, but I am not so sure how much it will move the needle on climate change (though I guess every bit helps).

First of all, the airlines won't give up that easily. The airlines might use smaller planes and slightly reduce the number of flights, but I wouldn't count on them abandoning the TOM routes.

Even if they did eliminate all of them, air travel between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal represents 15% of all domestic air trips in Canada (in 1997 according to this report). Given that (according to the David Suzuki Foundation) "Airline emissions make up a little more than three per cent of total emissions in Canada," the reduction Canada's GHG emissions would be about half of a percent (assuming seats on all flights have equal emissions, which they don't). Hardly braggable IMHO, but you do need to start somewhere.

There are many reasons to invest in rail, and I am not trying to argue against it, but it is important to have a realistic view of how much of an effect it will have on our total GHG emissions.

 

[crs1026]

First of all, the airlines won't give up that easily. The airlines might use smaller planes and slightly reduce the number of flights, but I wouldn't count on them abandoning the TOM routes.

If anything, I suspect that there is a backroom deal with Ottawa saying "OK, we will accept your building a rail line that competes Toronto-Ottawa, but we airlines get competitive advantage on Toronto-Montreal".

- Paul

 

[Sandpit]

Only in Canada, do we spend billions, ignore low-hanging fruit opportunities and claim that any more ambitious (reasonable in the rest of the world) objective is an obsession. The Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona corridor is of similar length ~600km, is anchored by similar population metro areas as Toronto and Montreal and yet, Spain built HSR that made the travel time 2h30min between Madrid-Barcelona. That's how you compete with flying and driving on this corridor. Even if there is a case for HFR, it's silly that in 2020, we think we should build the simplest and cheapest proposition that other countries have had since the 1950s (if not earlier) and ignore any serious attempt to actually win over mode share with HSR.

What's really frustrating is we don't have political economy frictions that other countries struggle to overcome. We've had majority federal government after majority federal government ignore railways. It's simply a lack of will (or ignorance?) that prevents HSR on this corridor. A minister that took one look at Spain (or elsewhere) could come back and literally demand/fund it in to existence. Instead we pretend that ministers are limited by the knowledge of technocrats who can't fathom building HSR.

The Catalan issue means that HSR in Spain is also a national unity project. So maybe if separatists gain ground in Quebec...