Ratazana
New Member
Why not revamping them completely by borrowing a page from the herringbone seats on plane’s business class?
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
Why not revamping them completely by borrowing a page from the herringbone seats on plane’s business class?
Urban Sky
Senior Member
I agree that the Business Class design could look more vibrant and inspiring than on that photo, but would you mind sharing some pictures to visualize what you have in mind?
nfitz
Superstar
It will increase speeds? I must have missed something there - aren't they still constrained to 160 km/hr because of the level crossing issue? Or are there points through the Canadian Shield where there are so few crossings, that it's viable to go faster, and/or do some grade separations.
Yes, it will increase Montreal-Toronto demand - if delivered as promised. I'm deeply suspicious though that they'll be able to maintain fast frequent services from places like Kingston to the other 3 cities - and wonder if the increased demand would exceed the losses there. And I'm deeply suspicious that they can even get to Agincourt in any decent time. If they really planning to go up the Don Valley to the CP line - then why are Metrolinx building a (very controversial) storage yard on the very track VIA would be running on?
In other words, it's not happening.
I've proposed that there be a single route from Toronto, to Kingston, along the alignment VIA proposed to Smith Falls, then into Ottawa and onto Montreal - with no bypass - for about 3.5 hours as VIA proposed. Or 3.6 hours if Urban Sky's Ecotrain numbers are more correct.
HFR greatly splits services, with plans for Kingston-Ottawa, Kingston-Montreal, and Kingston-Toronto services in addition to the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal HFR service. And now apparently with a potential bypass of Ottawa.
Sure, if people can stop pretending that there won't be a loss of the potential for express services between Toronto to Montreal.
It's also predicated on a certain ridership, and revenue, which I'm concerned isn't achievable with the relatively slow travel times for Toronto to Montreal.
The addition of the Ottawa bypass to the HFR map makes me fear that my concerns are correct, and the bypass is the lipstick for the pig. I hope I'm wrong!
The 3:38 time was, according to Urban Sky, for the 200 km/hr option - not HSR. (BTW, @Urban Sky, your Dropbox link in your post doesn't seem to work). Are you suggesting they are over-estimating the 3:38 time, because they were biased to the faster HSR times?
Same department. Same city. Similar issue. The biggest problem there was that they got in their mind, that this was the answer to everything, and couldn't let it go, despite being told time and time again by others that the concept was systemically flawed. The end result was that Montreal lost the position of having the primary hub in Eastern Canada - which certainly didn't help the economic decline of the late 1970s and 1980s.
Sorry? Where did I say I'd oppose investment. I've even advocated for additional investment for HFR west of Toronto. It's a brilliant scheme - poorly executed. In another thread I've vocally opposed the Ontario line, but also said the worst thing that the Liberals can do is cancel it if they are elected.
Criticizing potential flaws in a plan isn't opposing public transport. It's that kind of "my way or the highway" approach that we see more and more in the workplace, that removes the essential critical thinking to come up with the best possible plan.
I'd be thrilled to see them go ahead with this - even as planned. But I have concerns, and a belief it could be a lot better.
Ratazana
New Member
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Please quote whichever text has an incorrect link. I checked all links in my previous two posts while logged out of Dropbox and they seem to work...
Do you know of any rail services in any country, which have such a type of seats in a two-class configuration? I ask because I can only think of JR West's Gran Class, but there it is as a First Class and thus even above Business ("green") Class...
kEiThZ
Superstar
It was HSR. As in they required a fully segregated and grade separated corridor. The only difference between the two options was speed and electrification. This is different from HFR, which proposes not to require grade separation across the entire corridor.
VIA built Mirabel? Learn something new everyday....
Also, do you know who was running the Canada Infrastructure Bank back then?
kEiThZ
Superstar
Who cares? Serious question. If every train is better than today's express trains, why should anybody not see this as an improvement?
Also, separate express trains to Montreal, isn't exactly inconsequential. As I (and others) have pointed out, this kind of operation has consequences for frequency, operating cost, etc.
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
I am curious. How do passenger rail operators normally decide on LOPA? I sort of find it odd that the higher speed services (such as the Shinkansen) can offer something like Gran Class, but that the market can't support something like that on a service with longer trip times. That seems counter-intuitive.
Allandale25
Senior Member
Ratazana
New Member
I have only seen one on Google search. https://i2.wp.com/railtravelstation...abaya-Pasar-Turi-078.jpg?resize=768,512&ssl=1
Ratazana
New Member
I would agree to stand the whole way if you can get me from Toronto to Montreal in less than 2 hours. Lol.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
You can apparently find these cars on a luxury night train called Argo Bromo Anggrek, so hardly applicable to VIA's Corridor service:
Train travel in Indonesia | Trains Jakarta-Surabaya, ferry to Bali
An intoduction to train travel around Sumatra & Java in Indonesia, with train service between Jakarta, Bandung, Surabaya, train+ferry service to Bali plus ferries Malaysia to Indonesia
www.seat61.com
DirectionNorth
Active Member
It will decrease travel times, by reducing freight interference.
Have you seriously never ever heard of the freight carriers? How they affect VIA's performance? Or of their budget limitations?
If you take your lovely press conference as proof, the minister said at the same conference that T-M trip times would decrease by up to 90 minutes.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
In other words, along the current alignment.
An decrease of trip times on every trip is not a loss of the potential for express services.
An Ottawa bypass can be built when HFR is more successful and could use an upgrade.
How about we scrap the current services, because they're not up to an arbitrary standard you've set in your head?
Absolutely inconceivable statement.
I hope you're wrong too.
Are we talking about VIA Fast? No way we can get 3:38 today. Unless you live in a time capsule?
No, not really. We're talking about linear services, not a division of concentrated services.
If anything, your proposal is closer to the Mirabel situation; dividing the largest markets (rather than a peripheral service) to 1/2 convenience (ie. frequency) for marginal benefit.
Mirabel would have been a better idea if they closed Dorval altogether, since it would concentrate the aviation investment. Instead of improving two airports, they would only need to improve a single airport.
Like ignoring evidence and not using critical thinking.
I think HFR could be better.
Unless you get a genie lamp, this is the best way to get maximum output for minimum investment for VIA, as well as leaving future plans open.
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
Working fine now ... wanted me to sign-in last night - perhaps I did something stupid. Thanks for putting this stuff up.
As far as I know, Transport Canada has/had the ultimate say on both HFR and Mirabel. Though hopefully the involvement of the CIB would provide a more neutral and realistic business case than at Mirabel.
Speaking of business cases, where is the one for HFR? Via Rail and Transport Canada make even Metrolinx look transparent!
CIB didn't even exist back then - but back in 1967 when they misidentified the need for an additional passenger airport for Montreal, the PM was Pearson. It was a common trend at the time to try and replace existing airports with bigger ones further out of town. The second airport in Edmonton was under Diefenbaker - and remains a long way from Edmonton, unlike the old Edmonton airport, which stayed open for a half-century after it was originally supposed to close. The second (third?) airport for Toronto was under Trudeau in the late 1960s - but fortunately they all came to their senses in the mid-1970s, just as Mirabel opened, and put a halt to it.
Because it's no where near the performance that could be obtained by adding dedicated track (and new legislation) to the Kingston Sub between Toronto and Kingston (and incrementally further). It's not even anywhere near as good as what VIA could achieve until relatively recently when CN started being increasingly difficult.
As does the HFR plan of maintaining service on the Kingston-Toronto, Kingston-Montreal, and Kingston-Ottawa services. Not to mention the Montreal-Drummondville and Quebec City-Drummondville services (and if maintaining those is important, where are the Quebec-Sherbrooke and Montreal-Sherbrook services!).
You said faster trains, not decreased travel times. Decreased (and better) travel times could be achieved on the existing alignments if there was political will to legislate on how additional federally-funded tracks were to be used.
Given that most of the HFR system getting new service is going to be shared with freight, doesn't that kill HFR as well?
Ah, that's where I heard it - doesn't that imply that T-M service is using the Ottawa bypass from the very beginning?
The minister himself said they'd be knocking 90 minutes off the T-M travel times! That would put them less than 4 hours - which can't be achieved without a bypass (and even then it seems iffy).
No - new alignment from Ottawa to Smith Falls, somewhere near, but a bit east of Highway 15. And also routing all T-M trains through both Kingston and Ottawa - unlike what it appears HFR is now doing.
Not today, but with the upgrades that VIA Fast envisioned, and legislation to provide VIA with priority access to additional tracks along the CN Kingston Sub.
Please remain civil - just because you don't agree with me isn't a reason for personal attacks. Even if I am 100% wrong.
It would have - but not as good as the option of keeping Dorval for all passenger traffic, and moving freight to another (much smaller) location.
crs1026
Senior Member
Playing amateur lawyer here…. Once VIA has its own line, I expect CN’s position before the CTA would be….CN has always respected the public interest ie VIA’s need for a high quality route to connect Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal… and CN recognized that this traditionally fell on CN’s shoulders as an obligation to the public good, even in the face of the divestiture of CN as a public asset.
But now that VIA has its own route, CN should be relieved of the obligation to provide that high quality route…. and it is now able to degrade the Kingston line to whatever capacity and quality it needs for its freight operation.
CN is likely to keep the line in good enough shape for good speed - perhaps 75-80 mph for passenger, as we see on other lines eg the Dundas Sub. But does CN need double track throughout? Probably not…. for the number of freight trains they operate, they could revert to single track, as they have from Toronto to Winnipeg.
One has to believe that some amount of rail on the Kingston Sub is nearing end of life. Once VIA is reduced to local service, what compels CN to replace old rail as it wears out? Maybe some sections are taken out of service, or slow orders are placed on the track. Ties, ditto.
I had heard a couple of months ago that VIA’s service agreement with CN was up for renewal. We don’t know how strong VIA’s levers to enforce its contract might be, and I will bet that CN will have sought looser terms in the renewal negotiations.
It’s all very well to talk about what legislation might enable, but clearly no party with the prospect of forming a government is willing to contemplate that.
My bottom line - I suspect CN has decided that it’s time for VIA to exit, and it may have the upper hand. I doubt a VIA Fast plan can be imposed on CN even if it were the more attractive business case. CN can simply decline to fix the track beyond what its freight needs. CN may be holding the trump cards.
- Paul