VIA Rail

[micheal_can]

Between 15-20 trains on single track CPR, and about the same on the much less direct single track CN route. Neither have capacity for speed or frequency for passenger rail. VIA ran on CPR for years, but reliability was poor, speed wasn't even competitive with the bus and the route directly parrallelled the highway and the Greyhound route, so they switched to CN to try to serve non-served towns but reliability kept getting worse, then the route was cancelled.

Would doubling the CP track be enough to fit the frequency in?

HS&FR

There are HSR routes that aren't also frequent?

 

[Darwinkgo]

This was in 2013. Is it still relevant today? I thought this was all fed into the various studies the Government of Alberta did.

I'll be happy if something like this can happen and I've long maintained that they probably have a case as good as Toronto-Kitchener-London or Ottawa-Montreal or Montreal-Quebec City. But what has me skeptical is that Calgary-Edmonton is longer than all of these making the costs higher and the business cases tighter, even if there is higher traffic.

The land is much better for railroad building tbh (no blasting, gravel available everywhere), and with property ownership and roads being on a grid, you don't need a lot of it even with a brand new corridor. Still relevant, while wounded Calgary and Edmonton still have higher average incomes than all other potential corridors, plus the population is still growing.

 

[Darwinkgo]

Would doubling the CP track be enough to fit the frequency in?

Yes, with a full rebuild, and lots of high speed crossovers, and some triple sections. CPR figures they can do mixed operations with passenger service up to 200 kph. Costs are around 65% of greenfield.

There are HSR routes that aren't also frequent?

Various studies have had different model frequencies - usually with service plans starting at 10 or 11 trains in each direction over 16 hours.

 

[kEiThZ]

Various studies have had different model frequencies - usually with service plans starting at 10 or 11 trains in each direction over 16 hours.

That ain't exactly "high frequency". This is what VIA does today on the Corridor. And HFR is supposed to bump that up to 15 departures in each direction.

 

[Darwinkgo]

The infrastructure or equipment won't be the constraint - just operational costs. The lost frequencies just aren't projected to have demand. Unless they really discounted 11 am-1 pm frequencies for example.

 

[Urban Sky]

There are HSR routes that aren't also frequent?

You'd be surprised (I'm quoting from the Winter 2019/20 schedule, i.e. pre-CoVid):

HSR route	Segment	Frequencies (per day and direction)
Barcelona-Perpignan(-Montpellier)	Barcelona-Perpignan (177 km, double-tracked)	4 (Summer: 7)
Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona	Zaragoza-Huesca branch (80 km, single-tracked)	1-2 (1xdaily + 1xFrSu)
Köln-Frankfurt	Wiesbaden branch (13 km, double-tracked)	2 (no weekend service)

Compiled from: European Rail Timetable (Winter 2019/20 Edition)

Spoiler

Table 13

Table 650a

Table 910

 

[kEiThZ]

You'd be surprised (I'm quoting from the Winter 2019/20 schedule, i.e. pre-CoVid

This feels like one of "technically correct...." answers. All those examples are branches or stops. That's very different from discussing frequency on the main line itself (which is what I would think Calgary-Edmonton would be).

It's a bit strange to plan a Calgary-Edmonton HSR line at anything less than hourly. How would they expect to compete with WestJet and AC?

 

[Urban Sky]

This feels like one of "technically correct...." answers. All those examples are branches or stops. That's very different from discussing frequency on the main line itself (which is what I would think Calgary-Edmonton would be).

Agreed for Huesca and Wiesbaden, but not for Barcelona-Perpignan, which is a HSR line by itself (only slightly shorter than Montreal-Ottawa or Toronto-London) and used by trains originating in either Madrid or Barcelona and terminating at either Paris, Lyon, Marseilles or Toulouse.

It's a bit strange to plan a Calgary-Edmonton HSR line at anything less than hourly. How would they expect to compete with WestJet and AC?

I couldn’t agree more that any HSR line which doesn’t support at least hourly service is a pure commercial failure and it’s not a coincidence that such a low-frequency HSR line exists in Spain of all countries (given what a miserable economic failure HSR in Spain is), but I simply wanted to highlight the existence of HSR lines which are anything but high-frequency...

 

[Darwinkgo]

Commercial failure versus projected to perhaps make money? Like seriously. It doesn’t fit what you conceptualizer to be attributes of a successful project. If people want a 11 am frequency then it will be provided. Nothing stopping them.

Even before the pandemic flights between Calgary and Edmonton weren’t hourly (they were up to every 30 mins for commuting hour flights). Mostly since dash 8s got larger. And they can use those planes to fly captive and low frequency routes at suboptimal times times.

And yeah, a 8-12 car train set provides a lot more capacity than a Q400 or 736.

 

[roger1818]

I'll be happy if something like this can happen and I've long maintained that they probably have a case as good as Toronto-Kitchener-London or Ottawa-Montreal or Montreal-Quebec City. But what has me skeptical is that Calgary-Edmonton is longer than all of these making the costs higher and the business cases tighter, even if there is higher traffic.

Both Toronto-Kitchener-London and Ottawa-Montreal are about 200km, which is about the minimum distance that HSR is practical, and at that, the cost/benefit doesn't work as well as it does for a longer route. Just compare the proposed travel times for Ottawa-Montreal with HFR and the 2 EcoTrain speeds:

HFR: 1:33​

F200+: 1:11​

E300+: 0:57​

So for the huge premium in price, you are only saving 26 minutes, which is less than 30%. On a longer route you end up travelling at your top speed for a higher percentage of the trip, so the relative time savings will be higher. I am not saying HSR won't work on these shorter routes, just that they are on the very short end of the spectrum.

 

[roger1818]

Did that morning Kingston train come from Toronto? Did it layover somewhere overnight?

Given that the last eastbound train of the day out of Toronto (train 650) terminated in Kingston and the first westbound train into Toronto (either train 651 or 655) originated in Kingston, I would guess it would layover in a siding somewhere near Kingston, since there would be no point having it deadhead back to Toronto (or on to Ottawa or Montreal) only to have it deadhead back to Kingston the next morning. Further evidence is that the evening train didn't run on Saturdays and the morning trains didn't run on Sundays.

If it came from Toronto in the morning, it would need to be wyed before going back to Toronto unless it was a train with a locomotive on each end.

Not living in Kingston, I am not sure which option they chose. Given that equivalent sized LRC trains are shorter than the new fleet (which I previously showed could easily use the wye), I would say using the wye in Kingston would be an option. They may have even had the train layover in the wye overnight.

 

[kEiThZ]

Both Toronto-Kitchener-London and Ottawa-Montreal are about 200km, which is about the minimum distance that HSR is practical, and at that, the cost/benefit doesn't work as well as it does for a longer route. Just compare the proposed travel times for Ottawa-Montreal with HFR and the 2 EcoTrain speeds:

HFR: 1:33​

F200+: 1:11​

E300+: 0:57​

So for the huge premium in price, you are only saving 26 minutes, which is less than 30%. On a longer route you end up travelling at your top speed for a higher percentage of the trip, so the relative time savings will be higher. I am not saying HSR won't work on these shorter routes, just that they are on the very short end of the spectrum.

On shorter routes though your customer base changes substantially. At ~200 km, HSR can enable regular intercity commuting. Not just competition with air.

If it only took about an hour to get from Ottawa or Quebec City to Montreal, you start seeing substantial levels of commuting from those cities to Montreal. You'd see the areas around stations in Montreal and Quebec City develop with satellite offices. Etc.

The lift for Kitchener would be as large or huge. HSR would put them less than 30 mins from Pearson. Remedying a huge pain for one of the few tech clusters in the world without access to an international airport. Would also put them within 1 hr of downtown Toronto, making that trip comparable to the GO commutes many GTA residents have from closer burbs today.

For city pairs under 250, 200 kph can still be enough to enable commuting. The problem for something like Calgary-Edmonton is that they'd need 300 kph service to enable commuting and 200 kph service would function mostly as an alternative to air travel. That said, if they announced a 200 kph service, I'd be investing in real estate in Red Deer.

 

[roger1818]

In travel time conversations, we're missing the frequency side of the speed equation. Having the potential to add enough capacity that 99% of the time one can just show up and get on the next train is significant, as is having the next train being within an hour. That flexibility doesn't exist for air travel for all except power users (and since the flexibility doesnt, the frequency of air travel doesnt matter in the same way).

Except that it does. Just look at all the schedules of all the airlines. They all offer hourly or better departures from Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. Air Canada even brands such flights differently. Previously Rapidair and now Express Service.

I think you are missing the point @Darwinkgo was trying to make. Sure the airlines offer hourly or better departures, but could you show up to the airport early for your booked flight and have any reasonable expectation of catching an earlier one without having some type of super elite status that lets you bump someone else off of the flight or otherwise change the rules? Sure it might happen occasionally, but odds are either the flight is full or the gate agent won't let you take the earlier flight. This is much more easily done on a train. Sure there might be a small change fee if you have a discounted ticket, but it is usually possible unless the train is sold out (which usually only happens during holidays or special weather events). My company would let me buy full fare train tickets because they were still cheap and it made charging them easy if my plans changed (or got cancelled). I would buy a ticket for the last return train and show up whenever I could leave and modify my ticket for the next train.

 

[crs1026]

Frequency sells by giving the traveller more options, but one can't assume load factor or a service plan that encourages people to just turn up and hope there is a seat available. I wonder what proportion of travellers shop for cheap fares ahead of time and are locked into a specific itinerary.

Amtrak Acela for example can be heavily demand priced, so the frequency may not be the whole story.

Last time I changed a YTZ-YOW air reservation at the last moment, the charge was around $100. No doubt depending on the original fare category. My employer was happy to pay - it got me a half day back in the office that would have been spent in the Departures lounge had I been unable to move my itinerary forward. As a liesure traveller, I might have a different price point tradeoff.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

I think @Darwinkgo point has less to with frequency than with capacity enabling flexibility, in lieu of frequency. But I struggle to imagine why any operator would keep so much excess capacity on the hopes of facilitating 100% of walk-on business. There's a cost to that extra capacity. Especially if you purposely don't sell those seats. Also, the whole purpose of frequency is to reduce the penalty that comes from starting a trip between departure times. This is why HFR is supposed to at or close to hourly. And it's why you'll see hourly service as the minimum on most mainline HSR services, with additional departures at peak.

Specifically when it comes to distances like Calgary-Edmonton, it's in the range when alternatives include both flying and driving. And as such frequency becomes important, to cater to those who would otherwise drive, with door-to-door travel speed competing against flying.