VIA Rail

[crs1026]

^Please explain to me why anyone would consider running an intensive passenger service over the Dundas Sub, which is CN's main international freight line, and has as many barriers and conflicts with freight service (more, actually) than the Kingston Sub which has proven to be a poor place for VIA to run an intensive passenger service due to barriers and conflicts with CN's freight operation.

The Dundas Sub is a complete non-starter, let's not keep cycling back to it.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

Decades of experience with freight companies strangling VIA service, but some still insist that if we just cut a big enough cheque, this time will be different....

 

[nfitz]

To the best of my knowledge, the only GO service to have used any part of the Dundas Sub (MP 0.0=Bayview to MP 78.2=London West)

Ah, I meant Oakville sub - I've lost track of where it changes.

Please explain to me why anyone would consider running an intensive passenger service over the Dundas Sub, which is CN's main international freight line, and has as many barriers and conflicts with freight service (more, actually) than the Kingston Sub which has proven to be a poor place for VIA to run an intensive passenger service due to barriers and conflicts with CN's freight operation.

Because with the right contracts and separation, it's going to be faster than running further north.

The Dundas Sub is a complete non-starter, let's not keep cycling back to it.

Which is why I'm suggesting the Galt Sub.

Decades of experience with freight companies strangling VIA service, but some still insist that if we just cut a big enough cheque, this time will be different....

So kill VIA HFR then, which runs a much longer distance on the Winchester Sub?

 

[crs1026]

Because with the right contracts and separation, it's going to be faster than running further north.

If that were possible, then it would be equally or more possible through Kingston, and HFR wouldn't be on the table.

Which is why I'm suggesting the Galt Sub.

I can't see CP being any more helpful than CN, considering that VIA's end need is the same (an hourly service pattern) and the Galt Sub is single track west of Campbellville.

The CP line is straight and could be very fast, certainly - but those historical fast timings happened in a day when there were more service tracks and sidings, and freight trains were shorter and could be tucked out of the way. Nowadays freights on the Galt Sub do their work from the main line and pass only in a couple locations that have sufficient siding length.

And, back then there were only two or three passenger trains a day each way. CP never tried to replicate CN's passenger frequency, let alone what we need going forward... probably couldn't have done it back then, and it certainly couldn't do it now, without really impacting their freight operation.

Put CP on one line with CN and dedicate the other to passenger? It has its appeal, but it's just beyond what our legislators would ever direct, and the compensation paid to the freight railways would be huge. To me it's a fantasy argument, even if it arguably can work. The northern route is the only one VIA can afford, it avoids a huge hassle with the freight railroads, and it's not a bad choice if upgraded appropriately.

- Paul.

 

[nfitz]

If that were possible, then it would be equally or more possible through Kingston, and HFR wouldn't be on the table.

Why do we think sharing freight with HFR (and there's more of it that's still on active freight than not) is going to work, but not on the Kingston sub? The Winchester Sub is well used, and VIA will be sharing almost the entire Sub from Smith Falls to near Dorion.

I'm not sure HFR should be on the table!! It's certainly may be a benefit for Ottawa service, being shorter. And it has the benefit of a lot less level crossings if they want to go for higher speeds one day. But it makes little sense for Montreal-Toronto service, and is at best slightly shorter than staying along the lake - while missing most of the population.

I can't see CP being any more helpful than CN, considering that VIA's end need is the same (an hourly service pattern) and the Galt Sub is single track west of Campbellville.

How is this difference than the CP Winchester sub from Smith Falls to Dorion. Obviously part of this is adding one, or even two, tracks reserved for VIA. And putting in enabling legislation and regulations to give passenger trains priority over freight, where such track has been added.

 

[crs1026]

Why do we think sharing freight with HFR (and there's more of it that's still on active freight than not) is going to work, but not on the Kingston sub? The Winchester Sub is well used, and VIA will be sharing almost the entire Sub from Smith Falls to near Dorion.

While some people have read this into some of the vaguer releases, we don’t know that this is a fact. I am presuming VIA will use the more likely route of a short parallel stretch next to CP through Perth, and a stretch from De Beaujeu to Dorion, switching to the CN alignment from there to St-Henri.

Even these short stretches represent a huge risk for HFR. One can assume that CN and CP view this amount of accommodation as workable and a reasonable trade for otherwise getting VIA away from their routes…. but it remains to be seen whether they will actually expedite ViA on a day to day basis, and whether ViA will have sufficient legal remedies to enforce a service standard. Until we see more of the detail, I wouldn’t take my eye off this one.

I'm not sure HFR should be on the table!! It's certainly may be a benefit for Ottawa service, being shorter. And it has the benefit of a lot less level crossings if they want to go for higher speeds one day. But it makes little sense for Montreal-Toronto service, and is at best slightly shorter than staying along the lake - while missing most of the population.

How is this difference than the CP Winchester sub from Smith Falls to Dorion. Obviously part of this is adding one, or even two, tracks reserved for VIA. And putting in enabling legislation and regulations to give passenger trains priority over freight, where such track has been added.

I would much prefer a Network-Rail-ish entity that would rationalise and regulate all rail corridors and tell CP and CN where they can run their trains and with what priority. Freight co-production might extract capacity for Via from existing routes without so many challenges. But, that just isn’t going to happen in this country., so I don’t see the point in dwelling on it.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

So kill VIA HFR then, which runs a much longer distance on the Winchester Sub?

The Winchester sub portion isn't critical to HFR. And I actually do hope the Ottawa bypass is scrapped.

 

[kEiThZ]

But it makes little sense for Montreal-Toronto service, and is at best slightly shorter than staying along the lake - while missing most of the population.

The Ottawa-Gatineau CMA has more people than the entire Lakeshore east of the GTA combined. But I guess since you've only lived in Montreal, your fixation on Toronto-Montreal, justifies ignoring a metro of 1.3M and the national capital.

 

[Urban Sky]

The Ottawa-Gatineau CMA has more people than the entire Lakeshore east of the GTA combined. But I guess since you've only lived in Montreal, your fixation on Toronto-Montreal, justifies ignoring a metro of 1.3M and the national capital.

Just to back this up with CMA/CA population figures from the Census 2016:

CWLL: 59,699
BRKV: 38,553
KGON: 161,175
BLVL: 103,472
CBRG: 19,440
PHOP: 16,753
Total CMA/CA population between MTRL and the GTHA served by the Kingston Sub: 399,092

OTTW: 1,323,783
Peterborough: 121,721
Total CMA/CA population between MTRL and the GTHA served by HFR: 1,445,504

MTRL: 4,098,927

Cambridge: 129,920
WDST: 40,902
Total CMA/CA population between LNDN and the GTHA served by the Galt Sub: 170,822

Brantford: 134,203
WDST: 40,902
INGR: 12,757
Total CMA/CA population between LNDN and the GTHA served by the Dundas Sub: 187,682

GUEL: 151,984
KITC (excl. Cambridge): 393,974
STRF: 31,465
Total CMA/CA population between LNDN and the GTHA served by the Guelph Sub: 577,423

LNDN: 494,069


This means that for every non-GTHA resident "skipped" along the Lakeshore (Kingston Sub), there are 3.6 living in Ottawa or Peterborough and 10.3 living in Montreal.

Similarly, for every non-GTHA resident living along the Galt Sub (or the Dundas Sub, for that matter), there are 3.4 living along the Guelph Sub and 2.9 living in London. Moreover, whereas the intermediary population of HFR is about one-third of the population of Montreal, the intermediary population along the Guelph Sub is actually 20% larger than London itself...

 

[roger1818]

The Winchester sub portion isn't critical to HFR. And I actually do hope the Ottawa bypass is scrapped.

Even if they do decide to use the Ottawa bypass, I really don't think it would be high frequency. I see it as only being used during peak travel times, and off peak they route the trains through Ottawa for the improved ridership. It is better to have frequent service on a route that takes slightly longer than it is to have infrequent service on a route that is slightly faster.

 

[nfitz]

The Winchester sub portion isn't critical to HFR. And I actually do hope the Ottawa bypass is scrapped.

Without the Ottawa bypass, the relatively slow travel times to Montreal from Toronto will impact ridership too much. The transport demand modelling would demonstrate that - which is presumably why the bypass suddenly appeared on the maps - because it is critical to HFR.

The Ottawa-Gatineau CMA has more people than the entire Lakeshore east of the GTA combined. But I guess since you've only lived in Montreal, your fixation on Toronto-Montreal, justifies ignoring a metro of 1.3M and the national capital.

I'm not sure why the personal attacks here. I've also lived in Ottawa ... used VIA a lot then. And I lived in Kingston for years (for a lot longer than I lived in Montreal!) - which if anything explains my hesitancy to cut services to Kingston.

Absolutely Ottawa needs to be part of this - but I'm not convinced this is the best approach. The VIA Fast solution that the Martin government killed, of the new link from Kingston up to Smith Falls would have been just as fast - if not faster - than running through Peterborough.

 

[nfitz]

Just to back this up with CMA/CA population figures from the Census 2016:

Seems to be some cherry picking here.

CWLL: 59,699
BRKV: 38,553
KGON: 161,175
BLVL: 103,472
CBRG: 19,440
PHOP: 16,753
Total CMA/CA population between MTRL and the GTHA served by the Kingston Sub: 399,092

OTTW: 1,323,783
Peterborough: 121,721
Total CMA/CA population between MTRL and the GTHA served by HFR: 1,445,504

Hang on - now that VIA has figured out that the numbers don't work running the Montreal service through Ottawa, and have gone for the bypass through Kemptville, then Ottawa isn't anywhere close to the Toronto-Montreal alignment. So why include the Ottawa numbers - as Ottawa isn't served by either the current or future Toronto-Montreal service.

MTRL: 4,098,927

Cambridge: 129,920
WDST: 40,902
Total CMA/CA population between LNDN and the GTHA served by the Galt Sub: 170,822

Brantford: 134,203
WDST: 40,902
INGR: 12,757
Total CMA/CA population between LNDN and the GTHA served by the Dundas Sub: 187,682

GUEL: 151,984
KITC (excl. Cambridge): 393,974
STRF: 31,465
Total CMA/CA population between LNDN and the GTHA served by the Guelph Sub: 577,423

Wow - you missed Hamilton! And ignore that parts of Kitchener are closer to Galt than Kitchener Central.

Though the issue here isn't so much about population - it's about the end-to-end travel time from London to Toronto - which is going to be on Dundas Sub - and if you have a second choice it's Galt.

Surely your population numbers enforce this ... run the frequent express service through the lower density area, and the frequent slower service through the denser area - which would serve more the KW to London and KW to Toronto-type services, than London-Toronto.

 

[Urban Sky]

Seems to be some cherry picking here.



Hang on - now that VIA has figured out that the numbers don't work running the Montreal service through Ottawa, and have gone for the bypass through Kemptville, then Ottawa isn't anywhere close to the Toronto-Montreal alignment. So why include the Ottawa numbers - as Ottawa isn't served by either the current or future Toronto-Montreal service.

MTRL: 4,098,927

Wow - you missed Hamilton! And ignore that parts of Kitchener are closer to Galt than Kitchener Central.

Though the issue here isn't so much about population - it's about the end-to-end travel time from London to Toronto - which is going to be on Dundas Sub - and if you have a second choice it's Galt.

Surely your population numbers enforce this ... run the frequent express service through the lower density area, and the frequent slower service through the denser area - which would serve more the KW to London and KW to Toronto-type services, than London-Toronto.

Sorry, dude, but I'm no longer going to reply to your increasingly aggressive posts until you propose some more appropriate figures yourself rather than just lazily attacking the fully-referenced ones I provide, but just that much: please look up on Wikipedia what the "H" in "GTHA" stands for...

Thank you!

 

[nfitz]

Sorry, dude, but I'm ...

Why is sharing adding track and sharing freight with CP and CN on the two southern Subs between Toronto and London out of the question, and would only repeat the mistakes of the past, but doing the exact same for almost the entire CP Winchester Sub not an issue?

I can only assume that your desire to dodge the question means that you have no explanation why it will work in Eastern Ontario but not in Southwestern Ontario (not to mention the Trois-Rivières Sub if there's a future increase of freight traffic on the north shore!)

 

[Urban Sky]

Why is sharing adding track and sharing freight with CP and CN on the two southern Subs between Toronto and London out of the question, and would only repeat the mistakes of the past, but doing the exact same for almost the entire CP Winchester Sub not an issue?

I can only assume that your desire to dodge the question means that you have no explanation why it will work in Eastern Ontario but not in Southwestern Ontario (not to mention the Trois-Rivières Sub if there's a future increase of freight traffic on the north shore!)

I'm not demanding that anyone agrees with me, but just like everyone else here, I expect a minimum level of respect and that requires to not just shout "WRONG!", but to provide a similarly detailed analysis of why you think that your approach to the issue is more appropriate. This is not about what you write, but about how you write it.

Please return to a respectful tone or just stop interacting with me. We are a community of people with similar interests, not a parliament where politicians attack each other for whatever gains...

Thank you!