nfitz
Superstar
I apologize for anything I may have said that may have offended you.
Why is sharing the Winchester sub with freight not a problem for HFR, but sharing the Dundas or Kingston sub would be?
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
Why is sharing the Winchester sub with freight not a problem for HFR, but sharing the Dundas or Kingston sub would be?
roger1818
Senior Member
Frequency of service. Potentially running 2-4 express trains a day on the Winchester sub to bypass Ottawa during peak travel times (if VIA even goes with this option, which isn't a clear) is much easier than the full 15 trains a day that HFR would require.
DirectionNorth
Senior Member
These statements are ... questionable (and other adjectives). Let's take a look, shall we?
For the record, I think passenger service should have dedicated tracks.
The bypass appeared in some maps published by Quebec media. The VIA Rail HFR website sure doesn't feature it. I've not seen anything other than those Quebec maps, indicate this bypass.
A new alignment would be expensive. That would kill the plan entirely. The Havelock Sub is at least usable for the most part.
Numbers, both from Urban Sky's data and from highway counts, show that T-O and T-M demand to be equivalent. The 416 takes half of the 401's traffic at that point.
Don't measure transit by distance or speed. People travel to go somewhere useful, and the more somewheres you serve, the better.
I would be interested in train counts on the freight mainlines.
Because we're no longer running our main trains along the freight tracks.
For the record, I think passenger service should have dedicated tracks.
Ottawa and Peterborough isn't "most of the population" between T-M? The whole of the province east of Kingston isn't 2 million people.
We could do that. We would also need to expand grade separations, ROW, and buy the (more expensive) land along the Kingston Sub.
Show me this modelling.
It's not more than 50 km longer, and improvements on the Ottawa segment would benefit T-M trains too.
The bypass appeared in some maps published by Quebec media. The VIA Rail HFR website sure doesn't feature it. I've not seen anything other than those Quebec maps, indicate this bypass.
VIA promises to keep service to Kingston. If you don't believe them, I don't blame you ... but this seems to be a NIMBY attitude and very much a "minority holding the majority hostage" situation.
The goal of HFR is not speed. It's to get a relatively cheap, basic service that can be upgraded in the future (including the Ottawa bypass) to a better service.
A new alignment would be expensive. That would kill the plan entirely. The Havelock Sub is at least usable for the most part.
Have they? It's no longer than the Lakeshore route. I've only seen a map in Quebec media outlets.
The Winchester Sub is no more than 50 km out of Ottawa.
Still no proof.
Numbers, both from Urban Sky's data and from highway counts, show that T-O and T-M demand to be equivalent. The 416 takes half of the 401's traffic at that point.
False equivalency. We're still serving Montreal (without much degradation).
Hamilton isn't served by the Galt Sub. If you mean the Dundas Sub, then you can't include Kitchener.
It is though, the more people you serve with a roughly equivalent trip speed and time, the better.
Don't measure transit by distance or speed. People travel to go somewhere useful, and the more somewheres you serve, the better.
K-L and K-T isn't a small market.
That is fair.
Running limited trains on an entirely rural route where there is room for an extra VIA track (leasing arrangements might get complicated) is easier than running most SW Ontario trains on a semi-urban route where adding track is expensive (and you need more track).
I would be interested in train counts on the freight mainlines.
I personally would advocate for buying the Trois Rivières Sub if we were to HFR that segment. Will BNSF (is it them that own the track?) sell? If traffic is really that low, probably.
See above.
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
Where is the source that Montreal to Toronto isn't getting HFR service?
Also, what about the chunk of Toronto-Ottawa that is on the Belleville sub from Perth to Smith Falls?
Last edited:
DirectionNorth
Senior Member
It is - through Ottawa. I've seen zero evidence that suggest all T-M service will use the Winchester Sub.
See previous post.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Your own previous gravity model showed how valuable Ottawa-Montreal is. I suspect that if one did a summation of major city pairs along each corridor, the northern corridor would show substantially more potential even with the slightly longer Toronto-Montreal travel time.
That maybe. But I tend to think this breaks the model of building infrastructure with the intent of high utilization. It's a setup for poor return on investment.
Agreed. Which is exactly why I do hope that their ultimate approved corridor sees the Winchester plan relegated to the circular filing drawer.
It's a slightly improved travel time for one set of passengers (Toronto-Montreal), while cutting frequencies for another market (Ottawa-Montreal) which has substantially more ridership growth potential and is likely to be much more sensitive to frequency.
A proposal which never got to this stage of study, and required more new corridor development and substantial cooperation from the freight railways. You really going to argue that was the better idea?
kEiThZ
Superstar
Not to mention that 15 trains per day is the minimum. One hopes that we can double frequencies within 5 years of launch. I hope we can get to 15 min headways at peak and 20-30 mins off-peak. Whatever is built initially, should be designed to scale reasonably. Dependence on the freight cos, runs counter to that. As it is, I worry that our terminal approaches aren't designed for this.
nfitz
Superstar
Who is "we"? How isn't HFR not sharing with freight tracks along the Winchester and Belleville subs - even on the Ottawa-Toronto service? How is the Montreal-Quebec segment not sharing tracks?
So do I - build them along the Kingston sub.
Ottawa isn't between Toronto and Montreal, now that VIA has switched to the bypass.
Expanded grade separations would be an issue. And more so on Kingston sub. Would have to do a cost comparison.
I cant show you proprietary modelling that I don't have access to. But I did work with the proprietary 1980s modelling for the 1989(?) review and all the frequency in the world wasn't going to help Montreal-Toronto gain ridership - it was all about travel time for that distance.
I assume the statute of limitations has expired on that now!
There didn't seem to be much demand either, as far as I can recall, for Peterborough - Ottawa service, by ANY mode ... let alone Peterborough - Montreal. Peterborough-Toronto was where the demand was; nor did it change with time (unlike Toronto-Ottawa). The one thing that jumped out at me was that the Trenton/Belleville to Jonquiere demand was much higher than one would have expected - the working theory was it was related to travel between the two air force bases (you'd think there'd be a plane or something ... ).I'm not sure it's even any longer now they are bypassing Ottawa!
I'm all in favour of bypassing Kingston if it means significantly improved Montreal to Toronto travel times. But it doesn't.
True, it's not speed. But the bottom line, is if the travel time doesn't get much better than 4 hours from Montreal to Toronto, then the increased frequency won't increase the demand enough to justify the increased frequency (not to mention the capital costs). And I think that VIA has finally realized this, given the bypass around Ottawa is now in play.
I criticized HFR in this thread years ago, saying that VIA had been sold a bill of goods by someone. I believe my criticism back then is that travel times - particularly for Montreal-Toronto would be very poor, and that the cost from Toronto to Smith Falls must be significantly underestimated. I'm theorizing that VIA has now figured out the former - will be interesting to see how the final $ come out. Though I wouldn't be surprised to see VIA spike this themselves, and go back to a variant on VIA Fast.
It could well kill it, and will certainly be more expensive. Though the distance of about 70 km is a lot less of the 130 km of missing track, and can be built for 175 km/hr operation from day one - which is certainly not the case for Havelock. Heck, they might as well design it for 250 km/hr operation, and safeguard it for removing level crossings in the future.
Look back at the map that Transport Canada was tweeting when they made the July announcement.
But it's one side of a triangle instead of two. Not to mention dead straight, and no stops or cities.
Last edited:
roger1818
Senior Member
Where is the source that Montreal to Toronto is getting HFR service that bypasses Ottawa? All I have seen is a map that shows that VIA might run some trains on an alignment that looks to be similar to the Winchester Sub. VIA isn't going to run both half empty trains that bypass Ottawa and also half empty trains via Ottawa when they can be combined for only a small time penalty. At times they can reliably fill both trains, the express service is more feasible.
The Winchester sub doesn't run between Perth and Smiths Falls. It is the Belleville Sub that runs west of Smiths Falls.
Nit-picking aside, VIA has three options:
- Pay CP to double track the Belleville sub between Smiths Falls and Glen Tay (where the Havelock Sub begins) and lease the track from them.
- Lease the unused portion of CP's ROW north of their track and build their own dedicated track on the ROW.
- Purchase their own ROW that is parallel to CP's ROW
kEiThZ
Superstar
Travel time is just a function of investment here. It is entirely possible to achieve a 4 hrs travel time, with stops, without the Ottawa bypass. In due course, we'll see the analysis of alternatives that the project office must have undertaken, I'm sure. Not that I think 4 hrs is some necessarty target for Toronto-Montreal HFR service to be successful.
I am willing to bet that whoever this is tendered to, will not be building two corridors 50 km apart. They'll just invest whatever is necessary to achieve the target travel times they want, on a single corridor. The math on spending hundreds of millions on a separate corridor for maybe a dozen trains per day, while effectively reducing asset utilization across the rest of the system isn't going to very positive.
nfitz
Superstar
The map - which I've included above - shows that alignment as HFR. It's clearly the Alexandria Sub in the map - look how it does that little north-south segment through Smith Falls. Looks to me like the small hiccups in the line near Kemptville and Goldfield are there as well.
I suppose it's possible that this map is incorrect - but it seems to have been a deliberate change from the earlier versions. I can't see a proper map on the VIA Rail site anymore - only a schematic.
It's not a small time penalty though - the slowing down, curves, and stop in Ottawa alone add too much time ... the penalty for the extra distance is almost negligeable in comparison. Most importantly it puts the Montreal-Toronto further away from the 3-hour rule of thumb where rail can dominate other modes.
It's a catch-22. If you bypass Ottawa, you don't get the economy of scale to make it economical. If you don't bypass Ottawa you don't get the demand from Toronto to Montreal to make it economical.
Oops - I always thought that all 3 subs (Havelock, Belleville, Winchester) met at Glen Tay. Corrected!
I'm thinking some hybrid between Option 1 and 2. Basically operate like 2, but build like 1, and have the federal government force CP (and CN) to co-operate. I'm not unconvinced thought that 3 tracks wouldn't be necessary ... on the other hand, CP seems hell bent on reducing the number of tracks rather than increasing ...
I don't think if you have a 4-hour travel time from Toronto to Montreal that you'll increase the modal split enough for it justify high-frequency service. Which is why I assume they have added that bypass to the map.
As I mentioned above, the rule of thumb is 3 hours. They need to push it down to closer to 3.5 hours I'd guess.
I'm willing to bet that whoever this is tendered to, will not be getting to choose where they build corridors! Any more than whoever gets the design/build/operate for the Ontario line (is that the current plan - can't keep track of all the changes) gets the alignment between East Harbour and Gerrard stations.
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
You raise a valid point that VIA is not fully extricated from sharing with CN/CP. As I said earlier, don't take your eyes off this just yet.... but I can accept that reducing VIA's presence to a de minimus sharing, mostly in Montreal, may encourage the freight railways to say, OK, this is better, and unavoidable, so we can play ball. Especially since it's assumed that Ottawa will invest in that location to ease any conflict or congestion.
Whereas - occupying the full length of the Winchester Sub (or any other Subdivision, we were discussing the Dundas when this conversation started) is a much bigger thorn in the railways' side - the relationship likely turns on this above all.
There's the rub. I am curious whether you believe the Winchester can be occupied, even for only a few trains a day, in its current state? If not, how much investment do you think CP would require to absorb those few trains?
I happen to think CP would demand new investment, and the moment anyone suggests investment in the Winchester line, with the goal of faster Toronto-Montreal through trains, I will take exactly that same envelope and ask what can be done to the Kingston line for that sum, and how much that could improve trip times. Especially since VIA says it will remain present there anyways. ...CP has every grounds to ask why we are making things harder rather than better by then having 3 parallellish lines converging on Montreal instead of 2. And thus diffusing the investment over three routes. And even there, CN loses the carrot of finally not having express VIA trains in its hair.
I personally share your concern that the Montreal-Toronto timing is too long. Possibly that's why that illogical line ended up on that map (although I suspect it's more likely a poorly informed communication staffer on the Hill trying to "improve" the political message, without ever reading the business case). But, not having any modelling data to offer, I have to swallow hard and accept that going the long way is a necessary tradeoff to seal a HFR deal.
Asking either railway to continue supporting the long haul of VIA's corridor operation is the worst thing we can do.
- Paul
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
What modal split are we talking about here? HFR isn't really targeting air/rail. All their rhetoric has said, they want to pull from drivers. That doesn't require a 4 hr travel time.
There's literally no way to achieve a 3.5 hr travel time without HSR. You seem to be suffering from scope creep here and ignoring the very foundational premise of HFR, that it should not evolve into a capital intensive HSR proposal with the same fate as those HSR proposals.
Depends on the procurement model. We'll see.
nfitz
Superstar
I'm assuming that it couldn't, and there'd be hundreds of millions$ to billions$ of work. On the other hand perhaps it's already there and CP doesn't need it?!?
I generally agree. Though I think that we need to stop making this a matter of negotiation, and make the changes in law necessary that it only becomes a question of cost.
If there was no thought to that line, it wouldn't have followed some of the curves of the Winchester subdivision so well! But I'm guessing at that ... and simply taking it at face value.
I'm very much convinced that asking isn't the right approach. Something close to directing, on threat of nationalization and/or expropriation.
nfitz
Superstar
Air/rail/bus/car.
But if you plan to get it entirely from cars, the only way to do it is make the fares so low, that it's not economically viable (or I suppose toll the 401
) I've never heard before that it's not targeting air ... one of the previous studies that looked at various options was literally called "Alternative to Air".They can achieve 4.0 hours right now, simply by removing the freight. 3.75 actually if everything goes right. No way to achieve another 15 minutes? You could do that alone by moving the Montreal terminal to St. Henri metro.
If 3.5 hours is "literally" impossible without HSR, how did VIA plan to do this in 2002 without HSR and using only 200 km/hr trains - and NOT bypassing Ottawa station?
When we started talking about HFR in this thread - over six years ago - it was going to cost $4 billion. Is that still the current amount?
VIA Fast was to do 3.5 hours from Toronto to Montreal, through Ottawa, for $2.6 billion in 2002 dollars, using 200 km/hr trains.
I remain unconvinced that VIA is even going to get HFR from Union station to Agincourt for under $1 billion!
Last edited: