VIA Rail

[kEiThZ]

I'm growing old here waiting for an HFR announcement. I wish they'd pull the trigger either way at this point.

 

[nfitz]

I'm growing old here waiting for an HFR announcement. I wish they'd pull the trigger either way at this point.

I'm growing old waiting for the Liberals HST announcement for VIA. I was barely 13 when I first heard about it. Even if they start today, I'd be retired by the time it opens.

 

[roger1818]

One other thing to consider is that the issue with the Montreal-Quebec service was, and still is, that it is extremely slow and unreliable. Travel by bus was a better experience with faster travel times and, in my experience, dramatically better reliability. Furthermore, the busses on this route are both much cheaper and more modern than the trains used by VIA.

I can't compare this with the former levels of service on the Havelock line, but I do think that it is worth noting that the most frequent pre-covid VIA travel time for Montreal-Quebec was 3:45, about 15% longer than the 3:15 travel time offered by the hourly service offered by Orléans Express before covid. I believe that one of the three daily VIA trips was scheduled to be about as fast as the bus, but left at 6:30, but I think It took about four hours given that I got to the office at 11:00 when I rode it two years ago. I'll check the old schedules and write something more about this soon, but it is my understanding that the low performance of the Montreal-Quebec route was one of the reasons for it being prioritized in the HFR project along with the former Ontario high speed rail plans. The train is normally my preferred mode of travel, but I have begun to avoid it on the Montreal-Quebec route.

That is a very good point. I am not sure about 1988 (I was still living in BC) but I know from personal experience that in 1991 Voyageur used beautiful, articulated buses with hourly service on the Montreal-Quebec route, which would have been very competitive with VIA's offering. I don't remember how long the bus took, but looking at a 1988 VIA schedule, the train was about 3:20 (give or take) with only 4 trains a day (plus the Ocean to Levis).

 

[2transpo]

I'm growing old here waiting for an HFR announcement. I wish they'd pull the trigger either way at this point.

They have been silent on this for so long, that is the worst sign. I'm afraid that the only trigger pull we will see will be the one that puts to metaphorical bullet in this proposal.

 

[kEiThZ]

They have been silent on this for so long, that is the worst sign. I'm afraid that the only trigger pull we will see will be the one that puts to metaphorical bullet in this proposal.

That's too pessimistic. Usually for something like this, if they find a showstopper, the Minister and/or Cabinet is briefed and they pull the plug earlier. At minimum, they'd get proponents to at least start walking back expectations. Instead, the Finance Committee had it in their list of budget recommendations last week.

Realistically, this project has maybe one seat at risk for them (Peterborough). And even that's debatable, because you can all but bet the Conservatives would never pull the trigger. So cancellation is really not that much of a risk.

So either the Memorandum to Cabinet (MC) explaining the procurement hasn't been staffed yet. Or they are waiting to announce this at budget time.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm growing old waiting for the Liberals HST announcement for VIA. I was barely 13 when I first heard about it. Even if they start today, I'd be retired by the time it opens.

This is exactly why I detest the criticism of HSR advocates like Paul Langan or even Reece Martin.

Imagine where we'd be if they had just built something like HFR instead of constantly pushing for HSR as minimum. If we built HFR instead of holding out for ViaFast two decades ago, we'd probably be talking about HSR upgrades today.

 

[robmausser]

This is exactly why I detest the criticism of HSR advocates like Paul Langan or even Reece Martin.

Imagine where we'd be if they had just built something like instead of constantly pushing for HSR as minimum. If we built HFR instead of holding out ViaFast two decades ago, we'd probably be talking about HSR upgrades today.

Incremental upgrades are less sexy but they are typically a better methodology.

Its why HSR exists at all, versus the other crazy but cool ideas in the 60's like jet powered hover trains. The best solution is to incrementally improve things.

 

[Allandale25]

This is exactly why I detest the criticism of HSR advocates like Paul Langan or even Reece Martin.

Imagine where we'd be if they had just built something like instead of constantly pushing for HSR as minimum. If we built HFR instead of holding out ViaFast two decades ago, we'd probably be talking about HSR upgrades today.

I've watched several of Reece's videos and follow him on social media. I hadn't realize he was critical of HFR. That's disappointing to hear. (And if you or Reeve are reading this and also disagree with HFR that's fine. Happy to agree to disagree while reading all commentary on it).

 

[kEiThZ]

I've watched several of Reece's videos and follow him on social media. I hadn't realize he was critical of HFR. That's disappointing to hear.

Any discussion on HFR from him always characterizes the project as unambitious. His last video compared the project to a rail line being built in Ethiopia. This kind of talk only provides fodder to those who oppose the project. "Hey look. Even railfans think this is useless."

He'll caveat this by saying something is better than nothing. And I agree with that. But he seems to have no idea of the history of HSR developed elsewhere, or that lines can be improved progressively. Instead, he simply suggests anything less than the government committing to tens of billions in HSR is unambitious. This is ignorance. And when it comes from someone with a large platform, it should be called out.

 

[sacred]

I try to be as positive as possible about the project when I discuss it. It would be a big quality of life improvement for a lot of people I know (and myself). I hope you all do the same!
Also, call your MPs and the Minister of Transport

 

[Allandale25]

Any discussion on HFR from him always characterizes the project as unambitious. His last video compared the project to a rail line being built in Ethiopia. This kind of talk only provides fodder to those who oppose the project. "Hey look. Even railfans think this is useless."

He'll caveat this by saying something is better than nothing. And I agree with that. But he seems to have no idea of the history of HSR developed elsewhere, or that lines can be improved progressively. Instead, he simply suggests anything less than the government committing to tens of billions in HSR is unambitious. This is ignorance. And when it comes from someone with a large platform, it should be called out.

Thanks. One part of the project that I certainly consider ambitious is the relaying of track that was ripped out in the 1960s and the proposed length in kilometres. I mean, in most of Europe and the US, how often does that happen? I realize this might be going a little off topic but was it the case that a lot of those HSR lines in Europe built new corridors or they upgraded existing ones? It's also an apples and oranges comparison for the level of ambition for VIA's HFR to Europe's HSR if people consider that HSR in Europe doesn't have to tangle with to major freight railways (I believe) and has had decades of a head start. Also, was there really a lot of privately owned land next to the line, multi-layer governments and approval processes in Ethiopia? That definitely seems like apples and oranges. Canada is huge and has major regional competition for investment.

 

[nfitz]

Imagine where we'd be if they had just built something like HFR instead of constantly pushing for HSR as minimum. If we built HFR instead of holding out for ViaFast two decades ago, we'd probably be talking about HSR upgrades today.

Would we? Cost is similar. And ViaFast was more incremental.

Perhaps if we'd built VIA Fast back then, we'd be in a position to add more track to increase frequency - instead of dropping a huge amount of money that will do little to improve travel times.

I'm not unconvinced that HFR won't hurt VIA, with longer travel times, unanticipated costs, overstated benefits.

 

[Urban Sky]

Thanks. One part of the project that I certainly consider ambitious is the relaying of track that was ripped out in the 1960s and the proposed length in kilometres. I mean, in most of Europe and the US, how often does that happen? I realize this might be going a little off topic but was it the case that a lot of those HSR lines in Europe built new corridors or they upgraded existing ones? It's also an apples and oranges comparison for the level of ambition for VIA's HFR to Europe's HSR if people consider that HSR in Europe doesn't have to tangle with to major freight railways (I believe) and has had decades of a head start. Also, was there really a lot of privately owned land next to the line, multi-layer governments and approval processes in Ethiopia? That definitely seems like apples and oranges. Canada is huge and has major regional competition for investment.

The ambition in HFR doesn’t lie in any of its infrastructure characteristics, but that it would be the first major investment in dedicated intercity passenger rail infrastructure in Canada since (I believe) the construction of Montreal’s Gare Centrale (opened 1943) and of the present-day VIA station in Ottawa (opened in 1965) - and I struggle to think of any dedicated intercity passenger rail lines having been built in this country during the last hundred years. Why certain people (who all supposedly want to see intercity passenger rail improve) insist that the first major dedicated passenger rail project in Canada also needs to rival major HSR nations in terms of network density is beyond me. Just take a look at the chart from the video on HSR in Spain which was posted recently here:

Source: Youtube (at 4:41)

Now consider that dividing a HSR network length of 580 km (i.e. Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto) by Canada’s population (37.1 million in 2018) yields a higher HSR network density (15.6 km per million inhabitants) than Italy (15.2 km). Add Montreal-Quebec for a network length of 850 km and we are at a HSR network density (22.9 km) higher than Germany (19.0 km). Now add Toronto-Windsor for a total network length of 1210 km and we are at a HSR network density (32.6 km) which is only exceeded by France (40.9 km) and Spain (64.3 km)!

[Update 04:30 (02/27)]
I woke up in the middle of the night and realized by some reactions that I was overly harsh and not entirely fair towards a fellow member in my final paragraphs. I don’t have the time and mental capacity to review my original comments right now and therefore decided to remove for now the entire reference before it causes more preventable upset or offence to anyone. In the meanwhile, please send me any comments you might have by private message. Thank you!

 

[roger1818]

I'm not unconvinced that HFR won't hurt VIA, with longer travel times, unanticipated costs, overstated benefits.

Longer travel times? Even if you ignore the projected travel times, VIA's route with by far the largest ridership (Ottawa-Toronto) will have a far more direct route, dropping from the current 446 km to an estimated 404 km. That is a reduction of 13%. Combine that with not having to compete with freight trains and you will end up with a significantly faster and more reliable service.

Why is this route so much more popular that second best Montreal-Toronto route? Part of it is significantly higher frequency of service and part of it is improved reliability from VIA owning about 1/3 of the track on the route, but a lot of it is a better synergy between the cities for VIA's target market. HFR will reinforce and grow much of their existing market base. HSR will be too expensive for a large portion of their existing market, thus it would have to look for a new riders to succeed.

 

[2transpo]

The ambition in HFR doesn’t lie in any of its infrastructure characteristics, but that it would be the first major investment in dedicated intercity passenger rail infrastructure in Canada since (I believe) the construction of Montreal’s Gare Centrale (opened 1943) and of the present-day VIA station in Ottawa (opened in 1965) - and I struggle to think of any dedicated intercity passenger rail lines having been built in this country during the last hundred years. Why certain people (who all supposedly want to see intercity passenger rail improve) insist that the first major dedicated passenger rail project in Canada also needs to rival major HSR nations in terms of network density is beyond me. Just take a look at the map from the video on Spain which was posted recently here:
View attachment 302329
Source: Youtube (at 4:41)

Now consider that dividing a HSR network length of 580 km (i.e. Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto) by Canada’s population (37.1 million in 2018) yields a higher HSR network density (15.6 km per million inhabitants) than Italy (15.2 km). Add Montreal-Quebec for a network length of 850 km and we are at a HSR network density (22.9 km) higher than Germany (19.0 km). Now add Toronto-Windsor for a total network length of 1210 km and we are at a HSR network density (32.6 km) which is only exceeded by France (40.9 km) and Spain (64.3 km)!

Which of course brings me to @Reecemartin and I don’t know what I expected of the depth of his research and analysis after the cringeworthy experience of enduring a 9 minute video in which the name of the German ICE was incessantly mis-pronounced like the actual word for frozen water instead of an acronym (I’m pretty sure its Wikipedia entry features the name “Inter City Express” rather prominently, but I also don’t recall it being mentioned even once in his video). That said, I found it particularly hilarious that he slammed HFR simply for not satisfying the UIC definition of HSR, while citing countries like Britain, Denmark or Sweden as examples to follow, when according to the UIC’s own figures neither of these three countries has as much HSR network built, under construction or even in “long-term planning” than what he wants Canada to build now (i.e. a 850 km long HSR corridor from Toronto to Quebec):

Country	HSR lines in operation	... under construction	Planned	"Long-term plannning"	Total
United Kingdom	113 km	230 km	320 km	-	663 km
Sweden	-	11 km	150 km	589 km	750 km
Denmark	56 km	-	-	-	56 km

Source: UIC (2020)

And in true HSR-fanboy fashion, Spain is hailed as Europe’s leading rail nation rather than the living proof that you can simultaneously account for a unbelievable 32.3% of the European Union’s HSR network, 9.1% of its population and a pathetic 6.1% of its rail ridership, as despite all the HSR bonanza in Spain, people in the EU still travel on average 50% more by rail than those just in Spain (931 vs. 609 km in 2018). It would be comical, if you couldn’t apparently finance an entire professional Social Media presence with such lazy click-bait videos...

See now, I get where you are going with this post, but was there any possible way you could have talked about this without being rude and making accusations of clickbait and fanboyisms?

I assume the usual BNBR policy applies on UrbanToronto, right?