VIA Rail

[Urban Sky]

Honestly though if that's their excuse that's just pure laziness. There should be no reason why a 5 car train (assuming Toronto to montreal) that runs at best once an hour cannot be prepped for service within that time frame. They can clean and turn around a 16 car shinkansen unless than 10 minutes. For sure if they tried they can rotate 5 cars in 1 hour

If the time taken to turn these seats was really the only drawback from having rotating seats, how do you explain that virtually zero rail companies across Europe bothers with them, despite the fierce competition they often find themselves against each other (Trenitalia vs. Italo, ÖBB vs. WestBahn, CD vs. RegioJet, DB vs. FlixTrain, Thalys vs. ICE/TGV, ...)?

 

[cplchanb]

If the time taken to turn these seats was really the only drawback from having rotating seats, how do you explain that virtually zero rail companies across Europe bothers with them, despite the fierce competition they often find themselves against each other (Trenitalia vs. Italo, ÖBB vs. WestBahn, CD vs. RegioJet, DB vs. FlixTrain, Thalys vs. ICE/TGV, ...)?

probably $... it is a bit of a premium to buy and maintain, but it is acceptable to them at the expense of passenger comfort. its also possibly a east vs west ego thing as well.. you can see it virtually all asian railroads but not for western trains...
tough pill to swallow for europeans to admit that asian trainsa run things better than they do.

 

[Urban Sky]

probably $... it is a bit of a premium to buy and maintain, but it is acceptable to them at the expense of passenger comfort. its also possibly a east vs west ego thing as well.. you can see it virtually all asian railroads but not for western trains...
tough pill to swallow for europeans to admit that asian trainsa run things better than they do.

It's a bit frustrating that the moderators just deleted my entire message as "ad hominem" rather than giving me the chance to remove some of the admittedly unnecessary saltiness, but let me give it a more constructive try:

Just because you struggle to imagine any of the operational and commercial constraints which having rotating seats imposes on a railway service, doesn't mean that they don't exist and as the most visible European in this thread, I might take your remarks about "not wanting to admit" slightly more personal than they were intended.

I get it that you prefer to sit forward-facing and without staring at strangers and even though this preference is probably shared by a majority of travellers in any part of the world, there are many which prefer the inverse: be it to face their family members or friends with which they travel or just to watch how the scenery disappears into the horizon.

I have had the pleasure to travel extensively in Japan during a three-week vacations and even though I have no problem admitting that Japan's (and presumably also South Korean, Taiwanese and many Chinese) trains are much faster (but only where it pertains the Shinkansen!), cleaner, more frequent and of course reliable than in Europe, I was severely disappointed by their "one-seat-fits all" approach (without tables at quads) and the near-complete lack of any food or beverage options while on board. Like almost everyone, I fell in love with the Ekiben (bento boxes ubiquitous at all major stations), but many journeys were too long to realistically stock up hours ahead of actual meal times.

In short, just like I keep reminding people here that our trains really don't compare nearly as pathetically with European trains as many of us like to believe, I don't believe that Japanese railways do everything better than European ones. In terms of revenue management (using fares to divert demand towards less popular trains), Japanese railroads trail Canadian ones by more than a half-century (red-white-blue fares, anyone?)...

I hope that this response was more constructive than my previous one and I would like to apologize for some of the latter's unnecessary harshness...

Have a great weekend!

 

[ManyQuestions]

probably $... it is a bit of a premium to buy and maintain, but it is acceptable to them at the expense of passenger comfort. its also possibly a east vs west ego thing as well.. you can see it virtually all asian railroads but not for western trains...
tough pill to swallow for europeans to admit that asian trainsa run things better than they do.

Based on my (limited) experience traveling by train in East Asia and general online observations, rotating seats are very uncommon and limited to only a few Shinkansen trains in Japan. I don't have expert knowledge about that area but I did spend the bulk of my time traveling through China by train facing backwards in assigned seats on bidirectional intercity EMUs. As for adopting practices from Asian railways, not all practices are directly applicable to all areas; while I really do like that the REM project is adopting many better practices that are standard in East Asia but absent in North America, I am puzzled by the decision to carryover longitudinal seating onto this regional metro project.

 

[cplchanb]

It's a bit frustrating that the moderators just deleted my entire message as "ad hominem" rather than giving me the chance to remove some of the admittedly unnecessary saltiness, but let me give it a more constructive try:

Just because you struggle to imagine any of the operational and commercial constraints which having rotating seats imposes on a railway service, doesn't mean that they don't exist and as the most visible European in this thread, I might take your remarks about "not wanting to admit" slightly more personal than they were intended.

I get it that you prefer to sit forward-facing and without staring at strangers and even though this preference is probably shared by a majority of travellers in any part of the world, there are many which prefer the inverse: be it to face their family members or friends with which they travel or just to watch how the scenery disappears into the horizon.

I have had the pleasure to travel extensively in Japan during a three-week vacations and even though I have no problem admitting that Japan's (and presumably also South Korean, Taiwanese and many Chinese) trains are much faster (but only where it pertains the Shinkansen!), cleaner, more frequent and of course reliable than in Europe, I was severely disappointed by their "one-seat-fits all" approach (without tables at quads) and the near-complete lack of any food or beverage options while on board. Like almost everyone, I fell in love with the Ekiben (bento boxes ubiquitous at all major stations), but many journeys were too long to realistically stock up hours ahead of actual meal times.

In short, just like I keep reminding people here that our trains really don't compare nearly as pathetically with European trains as many of us like to believe, I don't believe that Japanese railways do everything better than European ones. In terms of revenue management (using fares to divert demand towards less popular trains), Japanese trail Canadians one by more than a half-century (blue-white-red fares, anyone?)...

I hope that this response was more constructive than my previous one and I would like to apologize for some of the latter's unnecessary harshness...

Have a great weekend!

No worries, and I get where you're coming from. As long as our discussions and debates are on facts and not finger pointing its all fair game. I too have been traveling in Asia many times and I've seen both good and not so good railways. In China and Japan their express rail service is meant to compete with airplanes so they need to keep their service at top level and it shows. Their cabins, especially in first class mimics those found in jets. I do admit my experience with European rail is far less extensive, however I have watched enough reviews to get a general sense of what it's like. Obviously there are pluses and minuses for everything but I guess we should compare the marquee services which in general sense which for us is the corridor intercity services. Since these generate the most cash for VIA they need to pretty much be the best, fastest, and most comfortable. Comparing to other equivalent services around the globe, it's safe to say we need to really catch up

 

[Urban Sky]

As for adopting practices from Asian railways, not all practices are directly applicable to all areas; while I really do like that the REM project is adopting many better practices that are standard in East Asia but absent in North America, I am puzzled by the decision to carryover longitudinal seating onto this regional metro project.

The longitudinal seating is the direct consequence of misusing a low-capacity transportation technology which is most suited as a people mover (e.g. at an airport) for a high-density transit corridor, which basically forces you to squeeze as many people as possible onto the limited real estate these tiny trains offer, while simultaneously pushing the system towards extreme headways. If there is one Asian practice I can see them adopting then it would be employees pushing you into these trains...

When pigs fly...

 

[reaperexpress]

Kingston Mayor Patterson's indications of 6 trains per day each for Kingston - Ottawa and Kingston - Montreal under HFR seem plausible, but I'm not convinced about the 12 trains per day Kingston - Toronto, particularly given the goal of reducing interference with CN.

The new HFR route from Toronto to Ottawa should be fast and frequent enough to capture the entirety of demand between the two cities themselves, so the only passenger demand in the Toronto-Kingston-Ottawa corridor will be the demand specifically to/from cities along the lakeshore. Although the present Kingston - Toronto ridership may indeed be double either of the two corridors, that's because it's the only corridor of the three which has practical service for intermediate communities, including early morning and late evening trains.

Here's what I think a plausible scenario could look like along the lakeshore corridor with 6 trains per day each to Ottawa and Montreal, and 8 trains per day to Toronto.

To enable efficient meets and turnbacks, Kingston Station should ideally be expanded to 3 tracks, though it is technically possible to run this schedule with 2 tracks and a crossover just west of the platforms.

 

[Urban Sky]

Kingston Mayor Patterson's indications of 6 trains per day each for Kingston - Ottawa and Kingston - Montreal under HFR seem plausible, but I'm not convinced about the 12 trains per day Kingston - Toronto, particularly given the goal of reducing interference with CN.

The main driver of interference is not frequency, it's the average speed of the passenger trains you want to insert. Therefore, it's much easier to insert milk runs (like #48) than express trains (esp. the kind with ambitious end-to-end times). The only problem with milk runs is that many of the smaller stations have only one platform (which undermines operational flexibility), but that's something which can be fixed without investing enormous amounts.

Just a random observation, but one thing which strikes me about the frequencies offered by VIA (and also in your schedule) is how much higher they are for Cobourg (CA/CMA Rank #111 with a metropolitan population of 20,125 in 2020) than for neighboring Port Hope (Rank #121 with 17,731), despite the relatively small difference in size...

 

[crs1026]

^Nice timetable work !

I would add a 23:15ish departure from Toronto to Kingston, providing connectivity for the later evening trains from Windsor/Kitchener/Niagara, and serving evening entertainment venues in Toronto. (Use a specialised trainset that can handle all the water flow from crying Leafs fans ;-) )

- Paul

 

[reaperexpress]

The main driver of interference is not frequency, it's the average speed of the passenger trains you want to insert. Therefore, it's much easier to insert milk runs (like #48) than express trains (esp. The kind with ambitious end-to-end times). The only problem with milk runs is that many of the smaller stations have only one platform, but that's something which can be fixed without investing enormous amounts.

Yes I know that reducing the speed differential between CN and VIA massively reduces conflicts given that the corridor is fully double tracked. I'm just thinking about how VIA will still need to pay track fees for all that Kingston-Toronto service, without any of the Ottawa-Toronto ridership to support it.

Just a random observation, but one thing which strikes me about the frequencies offered by VIA (and also in your schedule) is how much higher they are for Cobourg (CA/CMA Rank #111 with a metropolitan population of 20,125 in 2020) than for neighboring Port Hope (Rank #121 with 17,731), despite the relatively small difference in size...

I just copied VIA's current semi-fast stopping pattern. The details of the timetable are not meaningful, it's just a rough concept to get a picture of the services which could run within the various segments throughout the day.

Eastbound timetables, January 2020:

 

[kEiThZ]

The new HFR route from Toronto to Ottawa should be fast and frequent enough to capture the entirety of demand between the two cities themselves, so the only passenger demand in the Toronto-Kingston-Ottawa corridor will be the demand specifically to/from cities along the lakeshore. Although the present Kingston - Toronto ridership may indeed be double either of the two corridors, that's because it's the only corridor of the three which has practical service for intermediate communities, including early

The main driver of interference is not frequency, it's the average speed of the passenger trains you want to insert. Therefore, it's much easier to insert milk runs (like #48) than express trains (esp. the kind with ambitious end-to-end times).

Good points. I've been wondering too how they see 12 Kingston-Toronto trains. Even with Express trains, I have a hard time imagining the many trains being supportable.

I've always thought 12 trains was sort of guesstimate balancing both sides of service from Kingston, cause that's how many slots they'd need from CN.

Just a random observation, but one thing which strikes me about the frequencies offered by VIA (and also in your schedule) is how much higher they are for Cobourg (CA/CMA Rank #111 with a metropolitan population of 20,125 in 2020) than for neighboring Port Hope (Rank #121 with 17,731), despite the relatively small difference in size...

Also, a good point. I've always thought it strange how people look at Coburg as so much bigger than Port Hope.

Really, when looking at these , I question the value of express services altogether. There's no way to bolster travel between these cities with skip stop service. Also, I've always wondered why express trains skip Guildwood. Oshawa and Union are substantially less convenient to the eastern GTA. Especially with transit. And I would think this would particularly be the case in 10-15 years when Eglinton East LRT connects at Guildwood.

 

[crs1026]

Good points. I've been wondering too how they see 12 Kingston-Toronto trains. Even with Express trains, I have a hard time imagining the many trains being supportable.

I've always thought 12 trains was sort of guesstimate balancing both sides of service from Kingston, cause that's how many slots they'd need from CN.

I can see how, if there will be 12 trains arriving Kingston from Brockville, one would try to retain enough slots west of Kingston to match their arrivals with potential departures westwards. Doesn’t mean you have to use every slot, but better to retain what VIA has now than give it up and try to pry it back from CN later.

Also, a good point. I've always thought it strange how people look at Coburg as so much bigger than Port Hope.

Really, when looking at these , I question the value of express services altogether. There's no way to bolster travel between these cities.

With continuing densification, It’s not inconceivable that Cobourg/Port Hope/Newcastle/Bowmanville/Oshawa/Toronto could justify regional trains some day. Maybe those extra slots would come in handy then.

- Paul

 

[DSCToronto]

@reaperexpress Must say that the schedules between Toronto and Montreal are not good. Though day trips are clearly out, having no departures after ca 16.30 is terrible and means it is not easy to attend a meeting and get back home that night.

 

[crs1026]

@reaperexpress Must say that the schedules between Toronto and Montreal are not good. Though day trips are clearly out, having no departures after ca 16.30 is terrible and means it is not easy to attend a meeting and get back home that night.

Don’t forget, later through passengers will take the north line out of Toronto. That slot exists mostly to collect through passengers from points further east. 19:00 is likely late enough out of Kingston.

Montreal doesn’t have as many (any, so far) connections eastwards, so a 21:40 arrival may be acceptable. A question would be how the arrival times in Montreal might line up to late evening departures to Quebec City.

I’m not hot on the 4 hour gap westwards out of Kingston at mid day. I might put the 10:40 departure out of Ottawa a little earlier and connect it to the turnback of the laying-over 23:15 train I suggested. That’s One more pair west of Kingston to improve the headway a bit.

- Paul

 

[reaperexpress]

Good points. I've been wondering too how they see 12 Kingston-Toronto trains. Even with Express trains, I have a hard time imagining the many trains being supportable.

Yeah I don't see how those communities could support 12 Kingston-Toronto trains either. But if there were 12 trains, here's what I would do with them:

I figured that to avoid redundancy, the extra trips would be used to increase the variety of stopping patterns. I also threw in a couple super-express trips for the benefit of Toronto, Kingston, Cornwall and Montreal travellers, on the basis that the lakeshore route is probably time-competive with the HFR route due to its shorter distance. So during the busier times of day, the "ICE" trips provide extra capacity to siphon a bit of Toronto-Montreal demand off the HFR route to leave room for customers to/from Ottawa.

Also, a good point. I've always thought it strange how people look at Coburg as so much bigger than Port Hope.

From an operations perspective it's far easier to stop trains at Cobourg because it has 3 platforms, while Port Hope only has 1. So to serve Port Hope, trains may need to cross over to the other track, massively increasing conflicts with other trains.
The station access is also terrible, there isn't even a sidewalk.

Port Hope

Cobourg

Also, I've always wondered why express trains skip Guildwood. Oshawa and Union are substantially less convenient to the eastern GTA. Especially with transit. And I would think this would particularly be the case in 10-15 years when Eglinton East LRT connects at Guildwood.

Guildwood has pretty poor connections, actually. The only transit access is the buses which happen to pass by along Kingston Rd, which are still 200m away from the station itself. And those aren't even regional buses.
The bus services at Oshawa have much more significant catchment, being a primary hub for Oshawa DRT buses, as well as GO buses travelling across the GTA along both the 401 corridor (Pickering, UTSC, STC, York Mills, Yorkdale) and 407 corridor (UOIT, Unionville, RHC, 407).

I can see how, if there will be 12 trains arriving Kingston from Brockville, one would try to retain enough slots west of Kingston to match their arrivals with potential departures westwards. Doesn’t mean you have to use every slot, but better to retain what VIA has now than give it up and try to pry it back from CN later.

I wondered about truncating those Ottawa trips at Brockville rather than Kingston to avoid using the CN line at all, but I decided against it since the timed transfer in Kingston means that they would be running right next to another VIA trip anyway. So the net impact on CN would be negligible, it would basically be one slightly-longer VIA slot. In contrast, if those trips continued to Toronto, you'd probably want to spread them out more to improve the effective frequency, or have one of them run express to improve speed. Either way the impact on CN would be far greater than what I showed in my earlier 8-train schedule.

@reaperexpress Must say that the schedules between Toronto and Montreal are not good. Though day trips are clearly out, having no departures after ca 16.30 is terrible and means it is not easy to attend a meeting and get back home that night.

The schedule between Montreal and Toronto is irrelevant because nearly all Toronto-Montreal service would be via the HFR route which is not shown.