VIA Rail

[Urban Sky]

^^Turns out the plan was never executed the way it was described in the VIA timetables and the train actually operated only once per week and all the way to Toronto (NYC dep. Friday night, TRTO dep. Sunday night):

Sources: Rail and Transit (June 1994, p.15) and Branchline Magazine (September 1994, p.21)

Contrary to VIA's schedules, the through connection was mentioned in Amtrak's October 1994 (and presumably also in the summer 1995 schedule):

Source: timetables.org (copyright by Amtrak)


To add confusion, Amtrak called this cross-border service "Niagara Rainbow", which had been the name for a NYC-Detroit train, which ran across Southwestern Ontario (from Niagara Falls via St.Thomas and Windsor) between October 31, 1974, and January 31, 1979. The Wikipedia-article about that service also mentions the NYC-Toronto overnight service and provides an end date:

Amtrak also ran an overnight service between New York and Toronto, also named the Niagara Rainbow, from June 1994 to September 10, 1995. It operated as a once-weekly additional frequency of the Maple Leaf, departing New York on Friday night and returning on Monday morning.

 

[ssiguy2]

That VIA is "studying" HFR West means nothing. They have been studying HSR for 40 years and we know how far that has gotten them.

They should not be studying London extension because it should have been part of the original proposal and well before QC. The fact that it is not in the CURRENT HFR plan speaks volumes about how little they seem to care. Yes it would need new/twinning track and overpasses but that is true of the entire Tor/QC route and on a passenger carried analysis, London would be the cheapest portion to build. I don't think you people realize just how pissed off the people and Mayors of Windsor and London are over this plan and they have the right to be.

VIA's HFR proposal just reinforces what everyone already knew........this is first and foremost a political document and a transportation plan a distant second.

 

[Bordercollie]

That VIA is "studying" HFR West means nothing. They have been studying HSR for 40 years and we know how far that has gotten them.

They should not be studying London extension because it should have been part of the original proposal and well before QC. The fact that it is not in the CURRENT HFR plan speaks volumes about how little they seem to care. Yes it would need new/twinning track and overpasses but that is true of the entire Tor/QC route and on a passenger carried analysis, London would be the cheapest portion to build. I don't think you people realize just how pissed off the people and Mayors of Windsor and London are over this plan and they have the right to be.

VIA's HFR proposal just reinforces what everyone already knew........this is first and foremost a political document and a transportation plan a distant second.

Who decides which stations get how much service? I think it's unfortunate that Trenton and Ganonoque only are two trains per day. They should at least have two trains trips per direction.

Ganonoque being a tourist spot it's impossible to take a day trip out there from Toronto using the train. And the only way to get there from Kingston is by $50 taxi. For that money you could just rent a car and drive there yourself.

 

[ssiguy2]

Are you seriously comparing little Ganonoque and Trenton to London?

 

[Bordercollie]

Are you seriously comparing little Ganonoque and Trenton to London?

To Trenton yes. Not to London.

 

[Urban Sky]

That VIA is "studying" HFR West means nothing. They have been studying HSR for 40 years and we know how far that has gotten them.

No, they haven't: All the studies you refer to have been commissioned by the MTQ and the MTO and conducted by professional engineering firms, plus an unsolicited proposal from SNCF. The only thing VIA ever studied was VIAFast, which covered the entire Quebec-Windsor Corridor and featured exactly the kind of 200 km/h fuel-operated train service you keep demanding for Toronto-London here...

They should not be studying London extension because it should have been part of the original proposal and well before QC. The fact that it is not in the CURRENT HFR plan speaks volumes about how little they seem to care.

The only thing which speaks volumes is your complete ignorance of any facts, regardless of how often you get soundly and profoundly debunked: Montreal-Quebec wasn't part of the initial project scope either, but business leaders, political leaders and newspapers in Quwbec City and Trois-Rivières lobbied hard to get their cities included into the plan, whereas their peers in Southwestern Ontario condemned VIA for proposing any intercity passenger rail initiative at the same time as the Wynne government's ill-fated HSR project in Southwestern Ontario...

Yes it would need new/twinning track and overpasses but that is true of the entire Tor/QC route and on a passenger carried analysis, London would be the cheapest portion to build.

Sure, as long as Londoners don't mind transferring to a GO train in Georgetown to continue their journey to Toronto...

I don't think you people realize just how pissed off the people and Mayors of Windsor and London are over this plan and they have the right to be.

Londoners have every reason to be pissed, but their political leaders should be the target of their criticisms, not their co-signers...

VIA's HFR proposal just reinforces what everyone already knew........this is first and foremost a political document and a transportation plan a distant second.

Your posts reinforce what everyone already knew: that one just has to have read any four subsequent posts of yours to recognize every single word you write.

Now, if you could please do us a favour and create your own thread for your ever-same soundbites about how poor London is treated like the unwanted stepchild by every single transport policy decision maker in Ontario, Canada and the entire universe...^^

 

[crs1026]

What you are referring to is an Amtrak service which operated overnight between New York City and Niagara Falls, NY, where it connected with VIA #92 (from NIAG to TRTO) and VIA #95 (from TRTO to NIAG), presumably by having the passengers transfer and clearing customs by foot.

According to VIA's 1994-04-24 schedule, the overnight service was inaugurated on June 17, 1994, and departed NYC as #65 on Fridays and Saturdays, arriving in and returning from Niagara Falls the next day (i.e. as #62 on Saturdays and Sundays):

Actually, the Amtrak consist carried on into Toronto. That was the catch….very messy operationally.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

That VIA is "studying" HFR West means nothing. They have been studying HSR for 40 years and we know how far that has gotten them.

They should not be studying London extension because it should have been part of the original proposal and well before QC. The fact that it is not in the CURRENT HFR plan speaks volumes about how little they seem to care. Yes it would need new/twinning track and overpasses but that is true of the entire Tor/QC route and on a passenger carried analysis, London would be the cheapest portion to build. I don't think you people realize just how pissed off the people and Mayors of Windsor and London are over this plan and they have the right to be.

VIA's HFR proposal just reinforces what everyone already knew........this is first and foremost a political document and a transportation plan a distant second.

How many times does this have to be covered? There's no really economical way to go West of Union, as there is going East. They even found a lightly used freight corridor from Montreal to Quebec City that they could use. And this is all compounded by the fact that any westward extension has to serve Pearson. They can't have the largest passenger rail project in history skip the largest airport in the country. And that has to be done in conjunction with the air-rail hub that Pearson intends to build.

Given these realities, there is no politician or bureaucrat who would ever have picked going West before going East. Between Pearson's hub and the need to either acquire or build a whole new corridor, the Union-Pearson-Kitchener-London extension will cost as much as all of HFR from Toronto to Quebec City. It has to be a distinct phase.

 

[crs1026]

How many times does this have to be covered? There's no really economical way to go West of Union, as there is going East. They even found a lightly used freight corridor from Montreal to Quebec City that they could use. And this is all compounded by the fact that any westward extension has to serve Pearson. They can't have the largest passenger rail project in history skip the largest airport in the country. And that has to be done in conjunction with the air-rail hub that Pearson intends to build.

Given these realities, there is no politician or bureaucrat who would ever have picked going West before going East. Between Pearson's hub and the need to either acquire or build a whole new corridor, the Union-Pearson-Kitchener-London extension will cost as much as all of HFR from Toronto to Quebec City. It has to be a distinct phase.

I don’t disagree with the premise that there had to be a starting point, and we can’t “boil the ocean” all in one step.

But I would quibble about the premise that Quebec City is easy and economical while Toronto-Pearson-Kitchener-London is hard and expensive.

For one thing, Quebec-Montreal is 180 miles where Toronto-London is 119. Second, the Toronto-Pearson leg is roughed in while the approach to Montreal is messy and needs re construction along CP and CN trackage. A true hub at Pearson is still a decade or more away, true, but I’m not convinced that a free bus shuttle from Malton to Pearson is not viable as a stopgap - Logan in Boston has such a shuttle, for example.

Population wise, Toronto-Pearson-Kitchener-London is way ahead of Montreal-Trois Rivieres- Quebec. One can assume that ridership potential is greater.

We have not seen a comparative business case showing the relative merits of Quebec-Montreal vs Toronto-London as an element of HFR. It has been reported that the Quebec leg of HFR is not a money maker. Perhaps a head to head analysis would have favoured London.

Perhaps political considerations, and not network or economic considerations, is why things ended up this way. Plus a federal-provincial disconnect that makes it tempting for Ottawa to pass the tab for the west of Toronto leg to the province, especially with GO needing to invest in that line anyways. (I do think there is a political agenda, not a network agenda, behind GO stretching to London…. mark my words…)

Because of the politics, I think it’s inevitable that HFR 1.0 had to stop at Toronto. But let’s not misportray that as a sound economic decision.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1460253101953323013

 

[nfitz]

How many times does this have to be covered? There's no really economical way to go West of Union, as there is going East. They even found a lightly used freight corridor from Montreal to Quebec City that they could use.

Not sure it's been covered that much. And I'm not sure why it's dismissed at all, given that there's plans for the longer Montreal-Quebec corridor, that has lower population. And as crs1026 points out, the approaches into Montreal from the east (heck, from anywhere other than south shore) are horrific.

There's currently three rail corridors from Toronto to London. Adding some extra track from Aldershot to London would be quite doable. Heck, if you want to go for speed, restore the Brantford bypass track, and switch to new track along the CP corridor from Woodstock to London. And with that alignment the Pearson "problem" vanishes (not that it is a problem really).

 

[kEiThZ]

Not sure it's been covered that much.

It's been covered. Over and over and over again. @Urban Sky just covered it above again. They went east because there were lower risk and lower investment (relatively) options. And, at the time that HFR was being conceived, there was an Ontario government pushing HSR to London. What exactly would the point of an HFR proposal to London have been then?

Was there an element of politics? Probably. But it's pretty damn defensible, based on looking at risk alone. Going West is far more difficult and expensive.

For one thing, Quebec-Montreal is 180 miles where Toronto-London is 119. Second, the Toronto-Pearson leg is roughed in while the approach to Montreal is messy and needs re construction along CP and CN trackage.

And I'm not sure why it's dismissed at all, given that there's plans for the longer Montreal-Quebec corridor, that has lower population. And as crs1026 points out, the approaches into Montreal from the east (heck, from anywhere other than south shore) are horrific.

If there's no intention to terminate at Gare Centrale, or if VIA is simply willing to live with a break in service, it really is not all that complicated a project. It starts to look just like the TOM portions of HFR. Actually, less complex.

A true hub at Pearson is still a decade or more away, true, but I’m not convinced that a free bus shuttle from Malton to Pearson is not viable as a stopgap - Logan in Boston has such a shuttle, for example.

I don't, personally, see this happening with shuttle buses. The entire point of the Pearson hub, as per the GTAA, is to drastically cut car trips to the airport. To that end, they want to co-locate a departure and check-in hall at the rail hub. This means, not just HFR, but GO Kitchener eventually re-routed through the hub. I fully expect that the Pearson Hub, HFR West and GO Kitchener upgrades will be rolled into one large CIB package sometime this decade.

 

[ssiguy2]

When I talk about London service I am not talking about the route via Kitchener but rather Aldershot which is far more direct. This route is as direct as it could be and is only 180km. As noted above, restoring the Brantford Bypass would do wonders.

UrbanSky............You state that the reason why the line is going to QC was in, in part, due to politicians, business, and media demanding be so which just confirms what I have been saying all along, that this is very much a plan based primarily based upon political considerations and not transportation needs. This is to say nothing of the fact that TR/QC is one of the slowest growing areas of the country and SWO one of the fastest.

As far as people in SWO opposing Wynne's plan, that is crap. It got news coverage due to a couple of outspoken farmers but that was enough for QP to quickly rescind the plan that Wynne had created on the back of a napkin 20 minutes before the election call.

 

[kEiThZ]

When I talk about London service I am not talking about the route via Kitchener but rather Aldershot which is far more direct.

Not. Happening.

Zero chance that any rail network upgrade west of Union skips Pearson or Kitchener (AKA our "innovation corridor"). Especially since Hamilton is so well covered by GO.

 

[crs1026]

If there's no intention to terminate at Gare Centrale, or if VIA is simply willing to live with a break in service, it really is not all that complicated a project. It starts to look just like the TOM portions of HFR. Actually, less complex.

Even if the passengers alight in the north end, there is a need to get the trains to and from the maintenance base with reliability. I can’t see doing that with the status quo trackage. And the last ten miles into the north end station will need improvements to clear EXO trains.

So we are left with 80 miles of single track restoration from Georgetown to London, plus 10 miles of intensive construction Georgetown to Bramalea…. versus 160 miles of single track restoration, plus 10 miles of intensive construction into northern Montreal, plus an “escape” solution to bring the trains downtown at night.

On a pure cost to build and revenue potential comparison, I’d still vote for London.

You make a good point that we have to look over VIA’s shoulder as they saw things in 2014-2015, as that’s when the HFR concept was conceived. Given that date’s landscape, and the initial focus on a profit generating HFR, I can’t fault VIA for not looking to London. Neither London nor Quebec would have looked particularly profitable given the investment required.

But Quebec has more political sellability, so it found its way into the package.

I do wonder, though - if VIA had proposed an hourly HFR to London, offering semi express between Kitchener Guelph Pearson and Union, would GO have put much effort into expansion on that route beyond Georgetown? It’s chicken and egg, but VIA’s apparent inability/disinterest in Kitchener may be what earned us the GO service we have today.

I don't, personally, see this happening with shuttle buses. The entire point of the Pearson hub, as per the GTAA, is to drastically cut car trips to the airport. To that end, they want to co-locate a departure and check-in hall at the rail hub. This means, not just HFR, but GO Kitchener eventually re-routed through the hub. I fully expect that the Pearson Hub, HFR West and GO Kitchener upgrades will be rolled into one large CIB package sometime this decade.

I am not sure a transit hub that’s so far from the terminal will reduce the desire to connect by car. Only banning cars will achieve that. (hasn’t Manchester just done that ?)

For people arriving by TTC/Miway/BT/UP today, the hub is a step (more like 500 steps, actually) backwards.

For people coming from the hinterland by GO/VIA, it doesn’t matter how close the hub is. There will be a “middle mile”. Put the shuttle where the buses are today, loading at both ends of Terminal 1 as limos/taxis do today, and the transfer from train to terminal will be comparable.

Long runs of moving sidewalk are nobody’s dream airport experience, and Pearson already has too much of that. I’m not looking forward to the hub.

- Paul