VIA Rail

[Urban Sky]

I have only seen one on Google search. https://i2.wp.com/railtravelstation.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Argo-Bromo-Anggrek-Luxury-2L-Jakarta-Gambir-Surabaya-Pasar-Turi-078.jpg?resize=768,512&ssl=1

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]

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.

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?

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?

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.

In other words, it's not happening.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

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.

In other words, along the current alignment.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

I hope you're wrong too.

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?

Are we talking about VIA Fast? No way we can get 3:38 today. Unless you live in a time capsule?

Same department. Same city. Similar issue.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Like ignoring evidence and not using critical thinking.

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.

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.

 

[nfitz]

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...

Working fine now ... wanted me to sign-in last night - perhaps I did something stupid. Thanks for putting this stuff up.

VIA built Mirabel? Learn something new everyday....

Also, do you know who was running the Canada Infrastructure Bank back then?

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.

Serious question. If every train is better than today's express trains, why should anybody not see this as an improvement?

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.

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.

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!).

It will decrease travel times, by reducing freight interference.

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.

Have you seriously never ever heard of the freight carriers?

Given that most of the HFR system getting new service is going to be shared with freight, doesn't that kill HFR as well?

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.

Ah, that's where I heard it - doesn't that imply that T-M service is using the Ottawa bypass from the very beginning?

Tell is when you find it

I thought we'd seen some sub-4 hour travel times somewhere, that could only be explained by a by-pass - but I can't find them now.

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).

In other words, along the current alignment.

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.

No way we can get 3:38 today. Unless you live in a time capsule?

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[kEiThZ]

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.

Imagine pushing a plan that relies on unprecedented legislative change for success.

 

[Urban Sky]

Please remain civil - just because you don't agree with me isn't a reason for personal attacks. Even if I am 100% wrong.

Come on, give @DirectionNorth and all the rest of us a break!

You already shouted “personal attacks!” when someone merely insinuated that having lived in Montreal, but not Ottawa might cloud your perception about the relative size of both cities.

And then in the very next post, you have the audacity to accuse me of “cherry-picking” when I provide a comprehensive list of population centers recognized as CA/CMAs, but you don’t correct a single figure and then state sarcastically “wow, you missed Hamilton!” when I explicitly counted the “Total CMA/CA population between MTRL and the GTHA”, you know: the Greater Toronto and *drumroll* Hamilton Area.

In your next response, you have the audacity to suggest that I only raise objection against your disrespectful tone because of my “desire to dodge the question”.

And then you provide the most generic and passive-aggressive “apology” when I merely asked you to please return to a respectful tone ("to remain civil", to use your own words).

Fast forward one day, and it's again your universal complaint “personal attack!”, this time directed at someone who remarks that unless you send us your messages across the boundaries of time, there is no way that your assumptions hold true at the very moment where you were writing them.

Don’t get me wrong: I can understand those people who want to feel valued and respected regardless of whether people agree or disagree with their opinions just as well as those who just want to exchange rational arguments and see any inter-personal sentimentalities and disharmonies as a distraction and waste of energy. However, I personally find the way in which you jump back and forth – and this goes far beyond the last 2 days – between over-sensitivity (whenever someone refers to you as a person in even the most innocent way) and complete tone-deafness (whenever someone expresses not feeling respected by the way you communicate with them) somewhere between inconsistent, hypocritical and even self-righteous.

As much as you apparently perceive yourself as being attacked for simply voicing and vigorously defending a dissenting opinion, when you find yourself contradicted from all directions and nobody bothers to defend at least some of your points, you would make this entire discussion much less frustrating for you and everyone you interact with (including those who just try to read through pages of heated exchanges between yourself and half-a-dozen other people) if you finally started considering that the way how you say things might matter just as much as what you say. Sometimes, the only way to have a friend is to be a friend…


Thank you and have a good night!

 

[nfitz]

... you provide the most generic and passive-aggressive “apology” when I merely asked you please return to a respectful tone.

It was sincere - but I was confused why you were so upset, which did, I'm afraid, mean it was going to be generic ... but I thought that better than digging deeper.

Now that I know it was the "Seems to be some cherry picking here" comment - which I certainly didn't mean to be disrespectful - and simply means that I think you may have been selective - though not entirely sure. 'Fixation' however means I'm being 'obsessive' - which is personal.

I never meant the cherry picking to be at all offensive. I'm sorry that I offended you.

... this time directed at someone who remarks that unless you send us your messages across the boundaries of time

I wasn't particularly referring to that comment - but there were about 4 or 5 in that post, that seemed to be non-neutral - particularly the "arbitrary standard you've set in your head ...". Perhaps 'hostility' would have been a better word.

 

[Urban Sky]

It was sincere - but I was confused why you were so upset, which did, I'm afraid, mean it was going to be generic ... but I thought that better than digging deeper.

Now that I know it was the "Seems to be some cherry picking here" comment - which I certainly didn't mean to be disrespectful - and simply means that I think you may have been selective - though not entirely sure. 'Fixation' however means I'm being 'obsessive' - which is personal.

I never meant the cherry picking to be at all offensive. I'm sorry that I offended you.

I'm happy that you finally seem to acknowledge that this is an inter-personal issue (and like all interpersonal issues, there are always two sides who play there part - and as some people here may be able attest, I'm no saint either!).

Let's take this private, shall we...?

 

[Bordercollie]

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

You do know that the agreement would need to stay in place due to the fact that we dont have HFR built yet, and dont know if we will, and the fact that since VIA only owns a small portion of their network they rely heavily on CN to run their trains.

And being an essential service CN cannot just "end" the relationship. Good luck explaining that to the government spending money to subsidize VIA Rail.

 

[crs1026]

You do know that the agreement would need to stay in place due to the fact that we dont have HFR built yet, and dont know if we will, and the fact that since VIA only owns a small portion of their network they rely heavily on CN to run their trains.

And being an essential service CN cannot just "end" the relationship. Good luck explaining that to the government spending money to subsidize VIA Rail.

I’m sure it would continue, yes, but I have too much faith in CN’s negotiators to believe that they would not seize the opporunity to serve notice in a bunch of ways, and maybe convert some longstanding commitments to “for the moment” commitments, with sunset clauses…. and, as I tried to suggest, to point out that certain capital improvements (like replacing worn rail) are directly tied to VIA’s continued presence,, and if VIA continues to need that track for a few more yearsthey will have to pay for the upkeep, because after that the track won’t be needed.

I’m not a lawyer, but I have heard the term “detrimental reliance” too often in my career…… you told us you were about to launch a new railway, and we relied on that in good faith….

I’m sure there is already a plan in CN’s top drawer about how the Kingston Sub will be modified once VIA pulls back to local service. Shareholders do not allow a railway to maintain 700 miles of track and rail when only 400 miles worth is needed.

- Paul

 

[DirectionNorth]

Because it's no where near the performance that could be obtained by adding dedicated track (and new legislation)

Still no evidence.

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.

What's your solution? A genie lamp? If you want improvement, your personal fantasies cannot help.

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.

I should have made myself more clear.

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.

We know that already.

Do you have a concrete plan of how we can do that? Come back when you do.

Given that most of the HFR system getting new service is going to be shared with freight, doesn't that kill HFR as well?

?

It's ... not?

Ah, that's where I heard it - doesn't that imply that T-M service is using the Ottawa bypass from the very beginning?

We don't know yet. I don't believe that the decrease will be 90 minutes.

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).

Ignoring real world distances? Going through Ottawa is 15 km longer than the Kingston Sub.

Money that is put into the bypass could be put into speed improvements to T-M and O-whatever corridor.

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.

Map?

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.

Again, useless statement. Can you get this implemented? I will be deeply impressed if you could.

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.

Absolutely correct.

 

[kEiThZ]

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 I said earlier....Delusional. Your plan literally lies on legislation that neither major party has shown any willingness to put forward in government. What would suddenly change that history? And after that legislation, there's also the major court fight and constitutional challenges that would likely arise from such expropriation.

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!).

The places with more riders get priority. It's a shocking concept, I know.

 

[kEiThZ]

I’m sure there is already a plan in CN’s top drawer about how the Kingston Sub will be modified once VIA pulls back to local service. Shareholders do not allow a railway to maintain 700 miles of track and rail when only 400 miles worth is needed.

Well put. I am always struck at the naivete on this forum, from people who genuinely believe that CN is interested in supporting VIA over and above minimum financial self-interest.

At least nfitz understand that we'd need extraordinary legislation and the better part of a decade in court to compel them to do more.

 

[nfitz]

Still no evidence.

You need me to show evidence that they can run in 4 hours on the Kingston Sub from Montreal to Toronto? We know that already.

If you want improvement, your personal fantasies cannot help.

What? And besides - these are hardly my ideas. They are actually what VIA promised and the federal government funded previously.

Do you have a concrete plan of how we can do that? Come back when you do.

You want a concrete plan on how VIA Fast would be achieved? And yet we haven't seen that yet for HFR - heck we don't even have an alignment, between the route into Toronto, the Ottawa bypass, the connection around Couteau, and the connection from Central Station - or is it Cote-de-Liesse station ... or Parc station ... maybe they'll restore Viger station ...

There'll be freight on the HSR line from Agincourt to Peterborough. From Smith Falls to near Dorval. And from Montreal to Ste-Foy. That's more than half. Relatively under-used lines, sure (but will the north shore get more freight once the line is upgraded for HFR?) Though the piece of the CP Belleville sub and the Winchester sub are hardly under-used.

I don't believe that the decrease will be 90 minutes.

You don't trust VIA and/or the federal government to deliver what they've promised? Me either!

Ignoring real world distances? Going through Ottawa is 15 km longer than the Kingston Sub.

For the current VIA service on Kingston sub, the distance is 335 miles.

For the HFR route, Montreal to Ottawa was 116 miles (CN 1967 schedule) - subtract a couple of mile from the old station on Rideau is 114 miles. Ottawa to Smith Falls was 41 miles (VIA 1988 schedule) - subtrack 2 miles from the old Ottawa station is 39 miles, and Smith Falls to Toronto through Peterborough was 199.9 miles (CP 1950 schedule). The total is 350 miles on the nose.

Ah, 15 miles difference, not 15 km but 24 km.

Map?

It's the alignment shown in red in the EcoRail study. (alternative, using the EcoRail alignment is very similar)

But Urban Sky would know best - and probably has a better figure somewhere.

 

[kEiThZ]

For the current VIA service on Kingston sub, the distance is 335 miles.

For the HFR route, Montreal to Ottawa was 116 miles (CN 1967 schedule) - subtract a couple of mile from the old station on Rideau is 114 miles. Ottawa to Smith Falls was 41 miles (VIA 1988 schedule) - subtrack 2 miles from the old Ottawa station is 39 miles, and Smith Falls to Toronto through Peterborough was 199.9 miles (CP 1950 schedule). The total is 350 miles on the nose.

Ah, 15 miles difference, not 15 km but 24 km.

That's it?

So about 10 mins of run time + whatever the stops add. Seems to me they'd be better off building station bypass tracks and allowing for skip stop service, over designing and maintaining an entire bypass corridor.

They should also be able to wring out 10-20 mins more elsewhere for little more than that bypass would cost. The bypass looks even more pointless now that I look at the numbers.