News   Mar 28, 2024
 406     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 372     1 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 722     0 

VIA Rail

To me the article reads that the report refined the HFR proposal to be HSR for Toronto-Montreal and HFR for Montreal - Quebec.

I mean they were already planning 200km/h electrified service - is it hard to believe that they decided a better return came from upping that to 250-300km/h, as they basically need a new construction corridor anyway?

I think this is unlikely.

Going above 201kph/125 mph requires lots of grade separation which vastly increases the costs.

What is likely that they looked at stretches where they could get speeds closer to 200 kph. And more importantly they looked at where they could remove portions of slow running (<100 kph). Removing slow running sections actually has a greater impact on average speed per dollar than trying to facilitate short burst of very high speed. Keep in mind that an average speed of 150kph would get them from Toronto to Montreal in ~4 hrs. And that's achievable just by enabling stretches of 200 kph running, along with removing sections of very slow running.

As a rough thought exercise, consider that if they can have 300 km where they can run at 200 kph, the rest can be run at 100 kph, and they'd still reach in Montreal in 4 hrs.

Peterborough-Smiths Falls is about 200 km. And Ottawa-Coteau is about 140 km. $3-5B on these two segments would achieve their goals. $1B on the rest of Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal.
 
Last edited:
I think this is unlikely.

Going above 201kph/125 mph requires lots of grade separation which vastly increases the costs.

What is likely that they looked at stretches where they could get speeds closer to 200 kph. And more importantly they looked at where they could remove portions of slow running (<100 kph). Removing slow running sections actually has a greater impact on average speed per dollar than trying to facilitate short burst of very high speed. Keep in mind that an average speed of 150kph would get them from Toronto to Montreal in ~4 hrs. And that's achievable just by enabling stretches of 200 kph running, along with removing sections of very slow running.
Between Peterborough and Smith Falls is mostly uninhabited Canadian shield with minimal road crossings, with the existing rail corridor being a terrible alignment for even medium speed passenger service. My bet is most of it needs to be new corridor for HFR or HSR - so they figure they may as well go all the way and build HSR for the stretch.

I mean we'll have to see, but my bet is the report penciled out a much higher cost for HFR than Via was claiming, meaning that HSR is a more marginal upgrade cost wise.
 
Last edited:
IDK how you conclude that from reading the article. Literally everyone interviewed or quoted supported HFR.

The article really says is that the new infrastructure minister, McKenna, privately supports building a highspeed railway between Montreal and Toronto despite publicly endorsing the VIA HFR plan. However, It also says that the HFR plan was submitted to the government. This seems like really good news for HFR and suggests that the announcement is either being delayed until the budget or they are still deciding on a specific option if the JPO planned several. The only new information from the article is that there are some backroom LPC discussions about HSR. The extra stuff about HSR seems to just be pulled from Langan to give context to the backroom talk.

What I am confused about though is that it seems that despite the subtitle, there is no information about Sabia/infrabank having changed their positions. However, this could likely just be attributed to being a JDM article.....
Key context for folks from Ontario/outside of Quebec.
JDM is the Montreal tabloid equivalent of Toronto Sun.
 
Between Peterborough and Smith Falls is mostly uninhabited Canadian shield with minimal road crossings, with the existing rail corridor being a terrible alignment for even medium speed passenger service. My bet is most of it needs to be new corridor for HFR or HSR - so they figure they may as well go all the way and build HSR for the stretch.

I updated my post as you were writing you. And to some extent I agree. They need to remove the slowest running portions. And get some stretches where they can run closer to 200 kph/125 mph. The obvious stretches to upgrade are Peterborough-Smiths Falls and Ottawa-Coteau. As documented by @reaperexpress in this article there are plenty of stretches where some minor upgrading could achieve 110 mph/177 kph. It's the 102 km from Kaladar to Smiths Falls that is problematic. It would require a new alignment. Looks like the JPO probably reached the same conclusion too. The thing is they upgrade this stretch 200 kph and they could get Toronto-Ottawa to at or under 2:45 hrs.

I mean we'll have to see, but my bet is the report penciled out a much higher cost for HFR than Via was claiming, meaning that HSR is a more marginal upgrade cost wise.

Sort of. I think you're right that HFR probably came in more than the initial estimate. But I don't think the HSR came in as marginal so much as HPR came in as marginal. If the only whole new segment they need is 100 km from Kaladar to Smiths Falls and that alone gets the entire TOM line closer to 4 hrs, it becomes worthwhile to spend the extra $1-2B on it. I'm also convinced that they can get Ottawa-Coeau up to 177 kph for most of its length for some reasonable cost ($4-5M per km).
 
I think the real question is what does going from the old $4B diesel HFR proposal to $6-8B achieve in terms of service, ridership, and return on investment.

Personally, I think full blown 300 kph HSR is useless. It'll be unaffordable to most. Could actually hurt support for further investment if that happens. But there's a trip time-value proposition that most of the public would accept. I would argue that it's current fares for Toronto-Montreal at about 4 hrs. And slightly higher fares (10-20% more) if that trip got down to 3.5 hrs. So I think the question is how much improvement in trip time can they get per dollar invested and what's the point at which marginal return starts dropping quickly? I would guess that's somewhere around $6-8B for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal and $1.5-2B for Montreal-Quebec.
 
Between Peterborough and Smith Falls is mostly uninhabited Canadian shield with minimal road crossings, with the existing rail corridor being a terrible alignment for even medium speed passenger service. My bet is most of it needs to be new corridor for HFR or HSR - so they figure they may as well go all the way and build HSR for the stretch.

I mean we'll have to see, but my bet is the report penciled out a much higher cost for HFR than Via was claiming, meaning that HSR is a more marginal upgrade cost wise.
That's an exaggeration of the difficulty of the terrain. The Canadian Shield is really only from east of Tweed to west of Perth, a distance of roughly 80 km. The rest of the route is largely farmland with lots of concession road crossings. For example, here's where the current trail crosses County Road 38 near Springbrook. Not exactly rugged or uninhabited.
 
I think the real question is what does going from the old $4B diesel HFR proposal to $6-8B achieve in terms of service, ridership, and return on investment.

Personally, I think full blown 300 kph HSR is useless. It'll be unaffordable to most. Could actually hurt support for further investment if that happens. But there's a trip time-value proposition that most of the public would accept. I would argue that it's current fares for Toronto-Montreal at about 4 hrs. And slightly higher fares (10-20% more) if that trip got down to 3.5 hrs. So I think the question is how much improvement in trip time can they get per dollar invested and what's the point at which marginal return starts dropping quickly? I would guess that's somewhere around $6-8B for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal and $1.5-2B for Montreal-Quebec.
This belays a fundamental misunderstanding of HSR businesses cases. Sure, there is a revenue maximization point with high fares, but there is also a revenue maximization point at low fares, and a lot of the time the revenue maximization point with low fares is higher than the point with high fares.
 
This belays a fundamental misunderstanding of HSR businesses cases. Sure, there is a revenue maximization point with high fares, but there is also a revenue maximization point at low fares, and a lot of the time the revenue maximization point with low fares is higher than the point with high fares.

Sure. But I doubt we have the population, ridership or construction experience for cost containment to operate around the lower maximization point.

A 300 kph fully electric, fully grade separated HSR is a substantially more expensive and substantially higher risk endeavour than a mostly 200 kph diesel higher speed proposal that mostly takes advantage of an existing corridor and infrastructure. I am deeply skeptical that we'd be able to offer up end pricing on the 300 kph line that is close to the 200 kph line.

I do think though that we should build the line such that it is twin tracked at launch, can be electrified in the future and any large entirely new sections (like a whole new Kaladar-Smiths Falls section) are designed to run at 300 kph. That should provide a path towards progressively upgrading the line to higher and higher average operating speed.
 
This belays a fundamental misunderstanding of HSR businesses cases. Sure, there is a revenue maximization point with high fares, but there is also a revenue maximization point at low fares, and a lot of the time the revenue maximization point with low fares is higher than the point with high fares.

While fares are based on demand, they also need to cover costs. Operationally HSR costs significantly more. Not only does it require significantly more energy to have a train run at a higher speed (fluid friction is proportional to the square of the velocity) but the track needs to be maintained to a higher standard. One of the biggest differences between different classes of track is the tolerances to which gauge, gaps, etc need to be kept. This tighter tolerance means more frequent inspections and repairs. There is a reason CP keeps the Havelock sub at Class 1 even though the slow speed increases costs of operating the trains by hundreds of thousands of dollars a year (3 trains a week each way times 12 hours each way equals 72 train operation hours per week or 3744 per year. Upgrading to Class 2 would cut that in half, but they obviously they don't think it is worth the cost).
 
 
That's an exaggeration of the difficulty of the terrain. The Canadian Shield is really only from east of Tweed to west of Perth, a distance of roughly 80 km. The rest of the route is largely farmland with lots of concession road crossings. For example, here's where the current trail crosses County Road 38 near Springbrook. Not exactly rugged or uninhabited.

As far as we know, the JPO mandate is upgrading the existing line Agincourt-Havelock and restoring the once-built ROW Havelock-Perth substantially "as it was", albeit with a few curves improved, better superelevation, and modern signalling. And adding a dedicated VIA track Perth-Smiths Falls.

I'm dubious that the plan now involves some different route selection. That could necessitate new consultations, EA study, engineering, and land acquisition. And, new segments might take longer to build than the simpler restoration of the old ROW, especially if they are targeted to HSR standard.

Assuming a more HSR like line, with a whole different price point, also forces a whole new look at the economics of the line. That's also rework at this point.

So, while I have had lots to say about HFR's deficiencies, I'm more worried that some change in scope (even if promptly funded and launched) might lead to a later in-service date, by a year or two. I would be happier if anything that looks like a first bit of construction towards HSR were deferred in the interest of getting HFR Phase I launched and built.

I'm still not convinced that McKenna/Sabia have the floor sufficiently to redirect the decision away from HFR, in fact the "leak" may have been sour grapes if the decision leans to HFR as proposed.

- Paul

PS - If we are indeed heading for a new route selection, with the envelope no longer limited to that basic de minimus investment in the well known alignment, then I'm quite happy to offer straw man proposals within a similar scope (ie 80 km of new route selection, 15 miles of new track alongside existing CP/CN track in a shared ROW, restoration of 32 miles of abandoned ROW, upgrading of 120ish miles of existing worn-out trackage). I would likely swap the cost of 120+32 for the cost of some number of additional new miles of track alongside freight trackage, and look for an 80 km new track stretch through more favourable terrain than Tweed-Perth. For now, I won't go there unless Ottawa does.
 
Last edited:
For some rough ideas, just look at the 2010 Ecotrain study:


The F200 proposal came in at $9B for TOM. Probably closer to $11-12B today. It was $14B for TOMQ, which would be closer to $16B today. There's a lot of room between the $4B VIA proposed for the original TOMQ HFR proposal and $16B 200 kph HSR. And a lot of the Ecotrain study was using existing corridors too.

I think somewhere around $8B is probably the right price point. It should get Toronto-Montreal to around 4 hrs. Say 4:15 max. And it should get Toronto-Ottawa to under 3 hrs. That shouldn't require lots of grade separation or new corridors. Maybe just the Kaladar-Smiths Falls stretch and a few kms elsewhere to smooth out bad curves. That is something that they could get into service inside 5 years. With portions like Toronto-Peterborough and Ottawa-Montreal probably starting service inside 3 years.
 
While fares are based on demand, they also need to cover costs. Operationally HSR costs significantly more. Not only does it require significantly more energy to have a train run at a higher speed (fluid friction is proportional to the square of the velocity) but the track needs to be maintained to a higher standard. One of the biggest differences between different classes of track is the tolerances to which gauge, gaps, etc need to be kept. This tighter tolerance means more frequent inspections and repairs. There is a reason CP keeps the Havelock sub at Class 1 even though the slow speed increases costs of operating the trains by hundreds of thousands of dollars a year (3 trains a week each way times 12 hours each way equals 72 train operation hours per week or 3744 per year. Upgrading to Class 2 would cut that in half, but they obviously they don't think it is worth the cost).
While the first is true of course, you're missing that low fares would induce a boat load of demand, so you're spreading that higher capital and operational cost among way more users.

Anyways, I think this group has way too much Kremlinology on the brain. In the end, if a subsidy is needed, the Minister responsible will bring a recommendation to a committee of cabinet, and before that happens will confer with the PMO on whether to bring a single recommendation or a few options. Then the committee will set into motion the processes to get the JPO work into a proper environmental assessment for cabinet alongside a duty to consult report, while simultaneous work starts to prepare the Treasury Board further authorization. It is likely while that happens a fleet of consultants will once again be hired to keep things moving while the process works it way through.

The TMX pipeline ran into similar complaints with boosters - why can't the government be out there cheerleading? When the government is the regulator, and The Crown for the purposes of duty to consult, you can't cheer as loud as maybe people think you should.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top