2transpo
New Member
I am anti-HFR. As a concept, it is outdated from the very start and isn't worth the money.
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
Allandale25
Senior Member
A key piece of context is missing with that tweet when talking about HFR. And it's on purpose. Even though the clue is in the tweet itself.
Bordercollie
Senior Member
Yeah but how reliable was that time table? How often was the train on time?
2transpo
New Member
Beyond questions of reliability, it is worth noting that HFR plans to run diesel trains on a very curvy and slow alignment. Serving Peterborough isn't worth the crazy diversion and slow speed this service will have to make.
Darwinkgo
Active Member
It is worth noting that without a dedicated corridor, the current alignment will get less and less reliable, and consequently, slower.
And until we have the document dump, we don't know how many curves they're thinking of taking out while they do the other work.
Allandale25
Senior Member
1) You know full well VIA has given the option to the government to fund the electric version if they want to; and
2) You also know full well this isn't just about 'serving' Peterborough. So a red herring to just mention that.
Last edited:
EnviroTO
Senior Member
Can you give a little more background? Where was $4 Billion spent and where is the timetable showing 4h40min? The current timetable shows 4h50min on train 67 from Montreal to Toronto. Isn't the HFR timing 135min Toronto to Ottawa, 75min Ottawa to Montreal?
Last edited:
robmausser
Senior Member
A key piece of context is missing, and its from this tweet.
Its not VIA that is stopping a 3:59 train to exist like it did in 1970. Its CN.
Via isnt choosing a 4 billion dollar route for the lols. Or because they have an attraction to curvy rails or something. If this option existed, they would do it.
Hint: it doesnt exist.
roger1818
Senior Member
Even in this golden era of trains, for Montreal-Toronto, there were:
- 2 Turbo trains a day (except Saturdays), which took 3:59 and 4:04 depending if it was express or stopped in Dorval,
- 2 Rapido trains a day (plus a holiday special), which took 4:59 with stops in Dorval and Guildwood,
- 2 stopping trains a day, which took 5:59 and 5:45, and
- 1 overnight train, which took 7:35
For Ottawa-Toronto, there were:
- 2 stopping trains a day, which took 5:44 and 4:59, and
- 1 overnight train 6 days a week, which took 7:35
That sounds much better than having 15 trains a day on both routes (not to mention Montreal-Ottawa).
TerryJohnson
New Member
There's a world of difference between the twice-daily Turbo/LRC "cannonball runs" in 3h59 or 4h15 and reliably getting 4h40 every hour all day, plus a vastly improved 3h15 for Toronto to/from Ottawa, again every hour. There's also a huge time and "frequency cost of time" difference for Montreal-Quebec City and Ottawa-Quebec City, so much so that it might even hold up if the CDPQ won't play nicely and allow electrified, PTC/ATO controlled, intercity trains to share the tunnel they annexed.
The big "what-ifs" are whether Transport Canada will back the promises made to Kingston, Belleville, Drummondville, etc of continued service with reasonable frequency, and back VIA in negotiating track access to the remaining shared track segments so the train doesn't end up sitting for half an hour at Agincourt or Dorion waiting for two miles of intermodal cans to pass.
What makes it really hard to give the project an emphatic "yes" is that the JPO and Transport Canada could answer key questions like access to the tunnel... but they aren't telling! Many thanks to @Urban Sky for sharing his expertise and unofficial analysis here, which helps to answer many questions.
There are further savings in actual journey time - rather than platform to platform time - that could be achieved by reconfiguring boarding at Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal so you don't have to show up 30 minutes prior to departure, and sorting out services to/from SW Ontario so that connections though Toronto are a European-style 15 minutes, not 1h15. Those saving are much easier to achieve than shaving another 15 or 30 minutes off platform to platform time.
Last edited:
DirectionNorth
Senior Member
I said HSR, because that's what this group is advocating for. What are you advocating for?
Allandale25
Senior Member
That's not what I was referring to. What I was referring to was a certain acronym in the tweet that the tweet author purposefully ignored.
crs1026
Superstar
^The reason that Turbo performed much better in 1970 is because CN built sidings that were long enough for freight trains every 20-30 miles between Oshawa and Dorval. Those sidings were long enough for the trains of the day, which were maybe 5000 feet long. Freight timing was much less precise, so those pull-off delays were less of a concern. And, as noted, there was a much lower frequency overall of passenger trains, so a freight train was only delayed once or twice by yielding to overtaking Turbos.
These days, freight trains are 14,000 feet long and train handling is much more complicated. When (as inevitably happens) a VIA train ends up following on the tail of a freight on the Kingston line, it can be 50 miles or more before there is clear track to let VIA cross over and overtake the freight. Or, an opposing VIA has to be held so the overtaking train can run around the freight. This is where the reliability takes a hit.
It would take a set of much longer sidings to replicate that approach today. The sidings would have to be long enough for freights to enter them without slowing down... freights would only decelerate after fully clearing the main line, and their deceleration would have to be less aggressive. We're now talking 5-8 miles of siding every 20 miles. And, if we assume the next VIA is only an hour behind, there will have to be another siding not much farther up the line so that the freight can sprint to its next pull-off to let that following passenger train by. We can't ask CN to lower the velocity of its freights by having them pull off over again and again to let VIA go by.
If the freight is "on hours", ie the crew will time out before the next crew change point, or, if the freight is close to its cutoff time for whatever it is hauling to connect onto other trains at the next freight hub, CN will adamantly avoid impeding the freight train. Those missed connections may add a full day to delivery time for a freight shipment. Again, one can't ask CN to make that level of accommodation.
This isn't to say that the Kingston line couldn't be built to resolve this, but it would be costly. I have to assume that VIA has costed that option against HFR, in some ballpark way at least. HFR will cost out as less, and the increment is probably a couple of billions.
A fully 3-track Kingston line that costs HFR+$2B might be a better value for money than HFR in many ways. I'm partial to that alternative. I really don't like the erosion of the Montreal-Toronto travel time.... but I don't have the $2B to chip in to level the options.
I wonder whether, if VIA shifts its primary trains to HFR, could CN allow 2-3 Turbo-like Toronto-Montreal schedules a day, so that the most time sensitive Toronto-Montreal passengers have options for a fast ride, perhaps at a premium fare.
That would come with tradeoffs in how much local service CN would allow on the line, and I'm not keen to see that market eroded either, but some affordable level of investment might make more of that doable.
Perhaps the "incremental" upgrades to the Havelock line that are being suggested for later years should be weighted against the business case for incremental upgrades to the Kingston line. The cost of say twenty miles of double-tracking or curve reduction on the Havelock line might buy thirty or forty miles of triple track on the Kingston line, where there is less rock and swamp to overcome. Or even new line altogether to gradually get VIA off CN.
- Paul
These days, freight trains are 14,000 feet long and train handling is much more complicated. When (as inevitably happens) a VIA train ends up following on the tail of a freight on the Kingston line, it can be 50 miles or more before there is clear track to let VIA cross over and overtake the freight. Or, an opposing VIA has to be held so the overtaking train can run around the freight. This is where the reliability takes a hit.
It would take a set of much longer sidings to replicate that approach today. The sidings would have to be long enough for freights to enter them without slowing down... freights would only decelerate after fully clearing the main line, and their deceleration would have to be less aggressive. We're now talking 5-8 miles of siding every 20 miles. And, if we assume the next VIA is only an hour behind, there will have to be another siding not much farther up the line so that the freight can sprint to its next pull-off to let that following passenger train by. We can't ask CN to lower the velocity of its freights by having them pull off over again and again to let VIA go by.
If the freight is "on hours", ie the crew will time out before the next crew change point, or, if the freight is close to its cutoff time for whatever it is hauling to connect onto other trains at the next freight hub, CN will adamantly avoid impeding the freight train. Those missed connections may add a full day to delivery time for a freight shipment. Again, one can't ask CN to make that level of accommodation.
This isn't to say that the Kingston line couldn't be built to resolve this, but it would be costly. I have to assume that VIA has costed that option against HFR, in some ballpark way at least. HFR will cost out as less, and the increment is probably a couple of billions.
A fully 3-track Kingston line that costs HFR+$2B might be a better value for money than HFR in many ways. I'm partial to that alternative. I really don't like the erosion of the Montreal-Toronto travel time.... but I don't have the $2B to chip in to level the options.
I wonder whether, if VIA shifts its primary trains to HFR, could CN allow 2-3 Turbo-like Toronto-Montreal schedules a day, so that the most time sensitive Toronto-Montreal passengers have options for a fast ride, perhaps at a premium fare.
That would come with tradeoffs in how much local service CN would allow on the line, and I'm not keen to see that market eroded either, but some affordable level of investment might make more of that doable.
Perhaps the "incremental" upgrades to the Havelock line that are being suggested for later years should be weighted against the business case for incremental upgrades to the Kingston line. The cost of say twenty miles of double-tracking or curve reduction on the Havelock line might buy thirty or forty miles of triple track on the Kingston line, where there is less rock and swamp to overcome. Or even new line altogether to gradually get VIA off CN.
- Paul
kEiThZ
Superstar
He's one of those crazies who think all public transport is going to be made obsolete by the God known as Elon Musk.
kEiThZ
Superstar
An additional $2B spent on HFR would probably get Toronto-Montreal much closer to 4 hrs anyway. So why spend all that on infrastructure that VIA can't control?