VIA Rail

[SFO-YYZ]

Railfans are weird folks who gatekeep on HSR definitions.

The better way to look at it is target travel time. Toronto-Montreal in 3.5 hrs and Toronto-Ottawa in 2.5 hrs would basically end Porter and reduce AC/WS service to almost exclusively feeder service. As it stands, 3:15 Toronto-Ottawa and 2:20 Montreal-Quebec are big hits for the airlines that should eliminate a lot of point to point customers.

I'd be happy with anything MTL-TO for under 4 hours. As a frequent flyer with AC, I'd take HFR any day over the mess at YYZ/YTZ-YUL (just the Uber trip alone from to YYZ/YUL makes me shudder at times given the traffic and chance of flight delays).

And on a more selfish note - I actually enjoy a slightly longer train journey

 

[Xav]

I'd be happy with anything MTL-TO for under 4 hours. As a frequent flyer with AC, I'd take HFR any day over the mess at YYZ/YTZ-YUL (just the Uber trip alone from to YYZ/YUL makes me shudder at times given the traffic and chance of flight delays).

And on a more selfish note - I actually enjoy a slightly longer train journey

Same, I usually take a train and stay overnight in Toronto before taking a train back. I can still work on the train and it's usually about the same price as an uber to YUL and a flight to YTZ. Plus my employer allows me to book business on Via.

 

[crs1026]

Ive stopped at Port Hope several times.

The Sarnia train through Kitchener is especially egregious. Talk about a milk run. We stop in Wyoming almost every time for 1 passenger.

The London-Stratford-Kitchener segment is easily raised to the same quality as VIA's Ottawa-Brockville line, and for roughly the same amount (escalated, of course). That's quite affordable inside or outside of HFR.

The bigger issue is how many trains per day, and that's something that VIA will have to work out with Metrolinx and CN, as the pinch points are mostly to the east of Kitchener.

I agree that the state of the current service on that line is a national embarassment - the tracks to Senneterre are in better shape - but it doesn't touch on your concern about stopping too many places. St Mary's and Stratford are of sufficient size to justify service, doesn't have to be every train. With better tracks and more sidings, both express and local service can coexist.

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

Yeah, the Winchester Sub can be the shortcut east of Smiths Falls. I think it was discussed in this thread at some point last year.

While using the Winchester Sub would technically be an option, I don't think it is a very likely one given that I don't think CP would be willing to have their network disconnected from the Atlantic ports.

Besides, you are totally missing my point. I was trying to say that having completely separate and isolated ROWs for Montreal-Toronto and Ottawa-Toronto (like some people seem to be promoting), is not only expensive, but unnecessary since the shortest possible route for Montreal-Toronto could have branches to Ottawa and Kingston with the bulk of the ROW being shared.

I honestly don’t know what the business case for having any Montreal-Toronto Express trains bypass Ottawa via the Winchester Sub is supposed to be, as it would significantly increase capital (25% more route-km to upgrade) and operating costs (94% more train-miles) for an insignificant increase of ridership (3.3%, according to my GJT model)...

If you go back to my original post, you will see that I said,:

Eventually, if/when demand gets to the point where they can decouple the Toronto-Montreal trains from the Toronto-Ottawa and Ottawa-Montreal trains (without loosing frequency),

In other words, this would only happen once when demand has increased to a point where HFR is exceeding its capacity and upgrades are needed anyway. The thing about intercity rail is once you have hourly service, increasing frequency beyond that doesn't provide significant benefit, so rather than having 30 minute service through Ottawa, it would make more sense to keep it at the (post HFR) hourly frequency and add hourly express trains from Montreal to Toronto. As I said:

This would not be desirable from day 1 though, as coupling the three routes creates a huge boost in frequency (the F in HFR).

Which is why I keep arguing to build that segment as cheap as possible and bypass it (via Kingston!) as soon as we grow the stomach to pay for greenfield HSR infrastructure...!

I still remain unconvinced that a zig-zag Toronto-Kingston-Ottawa-Montreal route is the best one for a future HSR plan. I would rather see a route that goes down the middle with branches to Kingston and Ottawa.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'd be happy with anything MTL-TO for under 4 hours.

I agree that this is the threshold for non-HSR. It's unfortunate that HFR is closer to 5 hrs. I hope post-launch, we will see investments that bring Toronto-Montreal down to at least under 4.5 hrs within 5 years. And hopefully down to 4 hrs within a decade. Realistically, getting it down to 4 hrs means cutting Ottawa-Montreal by 10-15 mins and Toronto-Ottawa by 30-50 mins. That would probably require several billion in capital to do a lot of straightening, track twinning and grade separation, to get an average speed of 145 kph for entire 580 km stretch.

As a frequent flyer with AC, I'd take HFR any day over the mess at YYZ/YTZ-YUL (just the Uber trip alone from to YYZ/YUL makes me shudder at times given the traffic and chance of flight delays).

I think a lot of folks are really underestimating how popular HFR will be against flying for sectors where HFR is competitive. If the only savings from a flight is 1 hr for a trip from Toronto to Ottawa, and the fare difference is $50 each way, how many employers are going to pony up for air fare? Using current number, the difference in emissions at a $130/tonne gives VIA about a $8-9 difference in carbon taxes alone, in each direction. So I think $100 difference in roundtrip fare between HFR and air is very likely for the Toronto-Ottawa and Toronto-Montreal.

 

[kEiThZ]

I still remain unconvinced that a zig-zag Toronto-Kingston-Ottawa-Montreal route is the best one for a future HSR plan. I would rather see a route that goes down the middle with branches to Kingston and Ottawa.

There's no such middle route though. It's a really simple choice. Stay on the lakeshore and serve Kingston with better service, while screwing over Ottawa and the other major metros with slower service. Or separate inter-metro service from lakeshore service.

As for serving Kingston in the future with HSR, I don't see the point and I don't see it as likely. Let's say HFR is progressively upgraded. Some kind of turnout for Kingston is 60 km from Sharbot Lake. Building something like that from scratch would be well over a billion dollars. Possibly even closer to $2B. To serve a subset of travelers from Kingston save maybe 30-40 mins for their trip to Toronto or Ottawa. This is a business case that will never close. It will always be easier to simply spend that money improving the entire lakeshore service so that all the communities along the route can benefit. Not just Kingston.

 

[robmausser]

There's no such middle route though. It's a really simple choice. Stay on the lakeshore and serve Kingston with better service, while screwing over Ottawa and the other major metros with slower service. Or separate inter-metro service from lakeshore service.

As for serving Kingston in the future with HSR, I don't see the point and I don't see it as likely. Let's say HFR is progressively upgraded. Some kind of turnout for Kingston is 60 km from Sharbot Lake. Building something like that from scratch would be well over a billion dollars. Possibly even closer to $2B. To serve a subset of travelers from Kingston save maybe 30-40 mins for their trip to Toronto or Ottawa. This is a business case that will never close. It will always be easier to simply spend that money improving the entire lakeshore service so that all the communities along the route can benefit. Not just Kingston.

Theres no lakeshore HSR at any point if CN still owns the line. Period.

Important to remember.

 

[crs1026]

I agree that this is the threshold for non-HSR. It's unfortunate that HFR is closer to 5 hrs. I hope post-launch, we will see investments that bring Toronto-Montreal down to at least under 4.5 hrs within 5 years. And hopefully down to 4 hrs within a decade. Realistically, getting it down to 4 hrs means cutting Ottawa-Montreal by 10-15 mins and Toronto-Ottawa by 30-50 mins. That would probably require several billion in capital to do a lot of straightening, track twinning and grade separation, to get an average speed of 145 kph for entire 580 km stretch.

I'm with you in spirit, but I think you may be underestimating the time line. That second capital envelope will take a few years of successful operation to raise. The Business Case will compete with other priorities. Then you have to build.

I would like to see VIA make every possible attempt to prioritise the Ottawa-Montreal segment for "perfection", as it's the shortest city pair segment where one could build in all possible speed to demonstrate the merits of the further spend. And any time shaved off that segment would possibly offer "bang for the buck" towards reduced Toronto-Montreal trip time, also.

The big challenge in lowering trip time is actually the end bits. We don't know how VIA will enter Toronto, but either option will require slower running west of Tapscott. Ottawa-Fallowfield is also slow, and regulatory restrictions may prevail. Dorval to Montreal is very much restricted, and De Beaujeu-Dorval presents challenges in terms of shared assets. Everywhere the line is shared, the prospect of slow crossovers and freight conflicts is an issue. There will inevitably be slower speed segments imposed in Peterboro, Tweed, Sharbot Lake, and Perth. None of these is a dealbreaker on its own, but the "perfect" timing is not achievable on a significant number of route miles. The speed will be respectable - but one has to keep one's expectations in check.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

Theres no lakeshore HSR at any point if CN still owns the line. Period.

Important to remember.

And yet there are so many folks nostalgic for ViaFast which was pretty much that.

I agree with you. But apparently a half century of failure isn't enough to convince some diehard railfans.

 

[2transpo]

Here's the link to a readable version of the article shared here:

OKthePK - Public Canadian Railway News

Canadian railway news collected from a public source on the world wide web.

okthepk.ca

 

[nfitz]

While using the Winchester Sub would technically be an option, I don't think it is a very likely one given that I don't think CP would be willing to have their network disconnected from the Atlantic ports.

Why would it? Add a single track alongside the Winchester Sub. Grade separate the junction if necessary.. Don't even have to connect the tracks ...

 

[robmausser]

And yet there are so many folks nostalgic for ViaFast which was pretty much that.

I agree with you. But apparently a half century of failure isn't enough to convince some diehard railfans.

Correct me, but I believe ViaFast existed when CN was still a crown corp.

Then it might have been possible.

 

[Allandale25]

^ Doesn't look like it from the Wikipedia page. CN went private in 1995 and VIAFast was "initially studied in 2002".

ViaFast - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Some of the VIAFast documents are located here: http://www.westoncommunitycoalition.ca/node/13

There's even a UT thread for this started in 2009. Last post in 2010.

Chrétien Liberals had plan for fast rail: report

Chrétien Liberals had plan for fast rail: report $2.6-billion project for fleet of intercity trains cancelled by Martin government, ex-VIA boss said BY MIKE DE SOUZA A newly released confidential report about speeding up Canada's passenger rail service made a series of recommendations that...

urbantoronto.ca

Also, from the Wiki article:

In January 2008, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Quebec Premier Jean Charest announced that they would start their own study of high-speed service in The Corridor. Quoting a the study from 1995, Charest noted that the estimated $18 billion would cost about $23 billion given the inflation during the intervening period. The two premiers stated they would spend $2 million on a new study to bring the proposal up to date. "We think it's time to conduct our own study that takes into account some of the new realities," McGuinty said.[18] [updated link: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/gove...-speed-trains-between-quebec-ontario-1.715083]

I struck through "the" and replaced it with "a" because using "the" almost gives the impression they were quoting the VIAFast study and not the 1995 study.

 

[nfitz]

Correct me, but I believe ViaFast existed when CN was still a crown corp.

Then it might have been possible.

By that logic ViaFast is possible.

VIA Fast was a decade after CN was privatized.

 

[Catenary]

Why would it? Add a single track alongside the Winchester Sub. Grade separate the junction if necessary.. Don't even have to connect the tracks ...

There's room on the Winchester Sub - CP pulled out the second track this past summer, leaving only a few long sidings. They installed CTC to manage it, and sent the CWR out to improve the MMA/CMQ. If a bypass was needed badly enough, there is room to re-lay that second track, sidings might not be necessary.