VIA Rail

[roger1818]

Then I suggest you start to lobby the minister of transportation about via getting rights to use CP trackage.

No need. It is the minister of transportation that is suggesting that they will.

 

[lenaitch]

What makes CN and CP allow VIA to run on their tracks anywhere else in the country? The answer is a combination of money and legal requirement. The freight railways aren't required to give VIA whatever they want, but the railways can't deny VIA access to their tracks. Having said that, VIA might not be running on CP's tracks, but might lease a portion of the ROW and build their own tracks where CP removed them. At this point what is planned (if anything) is about as clear as mud.



I agree. CP has a lot to gain from VIA taking over the Havelock sub. VIA will take over all maintenance costs, so it will likely cost CP less to run their 3 trains a week on VIA owned track than it currently costs CP to maintain them. However, just because it is different, doesn't mean it isn't possible.

Turning the Havelock Sub over to VIA in exchange for money or some kind of quid pro quo for their use of it or some other consideration for CP ROW elsewhere on the HFR route would seem to me to make corporate sense to CP. How they handle running through/around the Agincourt Yard and elsewhere in the city will be another issue.

Regarding the Winchester Sub, I haven't seen it recently but if it is anything like what they did west of Thunder Bay, they turned sections of the second mainline into very (very) long passing tracks to allow their long freights to pass efficiently. If Winchester is similar, the ROW will have to wide enough to allow a third track in many locations.

 

[roger1818]

Turning the Havelock Sub over to VIA in exchange for money or some kind of quid pro quo for their use of it or some other consideration for CP ROW elsewhere on the HFR route would seem to me to make corporate sense to CP. How they handle running through/around the Agincourt Yard and elsewhere in the city will be another issue.

CP's Toronto Yard in Agincourt is a pale reflection of its former self (over 3/4 of its tracks have been removed), so getting through it shouldn't be a problem. The old hump could be used for the foundation for an overpass to get to the south side of the Belleville Sub.

Regarding the Winchester Sub, I haven't seen it recently but if it is anything like what they did west of Thunder Bay, they turned sections of the second mainline into very (very) long passing tracks to allow their long freights to pass efficiently. If Winchester is similar, the ROW will have to wide enough to allow a third track in many locations.

It isn't so much how long the passing tracks are but what percentage of the ROW still has passing tracks. According to this article, they removed
"60 miles of double track on the 104.9-mile Winchester Subdivision," so that works out to 57% (between a 1/2 and 2/3). VIA could either build new track parallel to the passing tracks or they could use the passing tracks for their dedicated track in exchange for CP being able to use the VIA's track as double track when VIA isn't using it (or a combination of the two).

 

[ShonTron]

View attachment 363149

Honestly, I liked my last trip better. The service manager on this train was a lot more strict than the last one I had about masks. But, business class was 2/3 full vs 3 people last time so it's fair.

Since economy was $46, and business was $64, the upgrade was a no brainer.

As I said before, business is a good deal if you're eating, drinking, and working. But if you're just going to be sleeping, go for economy.

The brakes on the refurb HEP trains sound like the ones on Mighty Canadian Minebuster

Business class isn't quite as nice as it was pre-pandemic. The liquor service has been reduced to beer, wine, or soft drinks only; previously they served broad choice of drinks prior to meal service and liqueurs afterwards. I understand the need for the change - it limits their interaction with passengers - but I miss it.

I won't miss the HEP-II coaches used on the corridor though.

 

[crs1026]

It isn't so much how long the passing tracks are but what percentage of the ROW still has passing tracks. According to this article, they removed
"60 miles of double track on the 104.9-mile Winchester Subdivision," so that works out to 57% (between a 1/2 and 2/3). VIA could either build new track parallel to the passing tracks or they could use the passing tracks for their dedicated track in exchange for CP being able to use the VIA's track as double track when VIA isn't using it (or a combination of the two).

There are now 4 longish (5 mile or so) sidings (passing segments, really) spaced about 10 miles apart, and double track still in place east of St-Telesphore. The turnouts at the ends of the passing segments are reportedly good for 45 mph which is pretty good.

The question is, how many VIA trains and how long do they occupy the territory. Supposing the remaining track is as good as it was in 1966, it would likely be fine-tunable to 90 mph except on curves, which aren't that frequent or restrictive. So those six hypothetical bypass trains, running in alternate directions, would each consume the single track for maybe an hour and change each. We don't need to make any assumptions that VIA would seek to upgrade that track to the standard of the full HFR line.... ie no 177 km/hour speeds needed.

At current freight volume there will seldom if ever be more than two CP trains in that segment, at least for the next 5 years. Even if there were four, they would all fit into the passing zones...and the amount of delay they would encounter from a single VIA is pretty minimal.

My point being, the operability of VIA (at a low frequency) on that route is pretty darn good. And the capital cost of getting to that 90 mph is probably pretty low.

That doesn't imply that CP is all that thrilled about having VIA on that section.... but it might not look that bad a proposition if the price were right. I do wonder if there might be a quid pro quo somewhere that kept CP from laughing Ottawa out of the room when this idea was proposed.

It's still a poor choice - especially since there is little upward growth potential without putting some of the former track back. But on paper it might not look like a terrible investment.

- Paul

 

[Bordercollie]

Business class isn't quite as nice as it was pre-pandemic. The liquor service has been reduced to beer, wine, or soft drinks only; previously they served broad choice of drinks prior to meal service and liqueurs afterwards. I understand the need for the change - it limits their interaction with passengers - but I miss it.

I won't miss the HEP-II coaches used on the corridor though.

The rebuilt HEP II care are almost as comfortable as an LRC. You would be surprised at the difference. They are much quieter than before they where rebuilt.
Just have to make sure that the doors are closed on either end.

What is the track speed on the Winchester sub?

 

[Urban Sky]

What is the track speed on the Winchester sub?

From a Railway Investigation Report in 2010:

https://bst.gc.ca/ENG/rapports-reports/rail/2010/r10d0077/r10d0077.pdf

 

[nfitz]

As far as I know, CP has since decommissioned one of tracks, to save money on maintenance.

 

[Urban Sky]

As far as I know, CP has since decommissioned one of tracks, to save money on maintenance.

Refer back to just a few posts ago:

It isn't so much how long the passing tracks are but what percentage of the ROW still has passing tracks. According to this article, they removed
"60 miles of double track on the 104.9-mile Winchester Subdivision," so that works out to 57% (between a 1/2 and 2/3).

As far as track speeds (and especially: track Classes) are concerned, I doubt that they have improved since then...

 

[crs1026]

^Class 4 track is rated by TC regs at 80 mph for passenger,

Some high priority intermodal trains used to be allowed 65mph on the Winchester - I don’t know if that’s still the case.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

Thanks for the great analysis! Certainly if the capital cost to build the bypass per km is the same as the entire TOM HFR project, your calculations are correct. The problem is I don't think that is a valid assumption. CP removed 2/3 of the double track (leaving 1/3 as passing tracks) less than 1.5 years ago, meaning that the base should still be in good condition. Also, most of the ROW is very straight, so little if any adjustments to the curves will be necessary.

I don't know what a good cost per km would be, but (reverse engineering your calculations) if we used the same as OTTW-MTRL, you would get the following results. As I said, I don't know if this would be correct either, so if anyone wants to try anything other values, send me a PM, and I will send you the link to the Google Sheets sheet I made.

Metric	HFR TRTO-OTTW	HFR OTTW-MTRL	HFR TRTO-OTTW-MTRL (Base Case)	Ottawa Bypass	vs. HFR without Ottawa Bypass
Capital Cost	$2.1 billion	$91.5 million	$2.2 billion	$74.2 million	+3%
Segment length (km)	400	180	580	146	+25%
Frequencies/day	15	15	15	6	+40%
Trains/year	10,950	10,950	10,950	4,380	+40%
Train-km/year	4,380,000	1,971,000	6,351,000	639,480	+10% (ignoring everything outside the Ottawa Bypass)
Capital cost per km	$5.3 million	$508.3 thousand	$3.8 million	$508.3 thousand
Capital cost per year (assuming 40-year asset life)	$52.5 million	$2.29 million	$54.75 million	$1.86 million	+3%
Capital cost per train movement	$4,795	$208.90	$5,000	$424	+8% (ignoring everything outside the Ottawa Bypass)
Capital cost per train-km	$11.99	$1.16	$8.62	$2.90	+34%

Thank you for volunteering a modification to my table, which is highly appreciated!

When looking at that $508.3 thousand per km capital cost, I struggle to believe that you could obtain any guaranteed slots out of the Winchester Sub at such a low-ball capital cost (recall that CN charged VIA $4.5 million for every km of triple-tracking and that was about a decade ago).

Maybe let's try to first break down the travel time between Montreal and Ottawa:

• MTRL-DORV (19 km): If we go to the last pre-Covid schedule, the fastest scheduled travel time from MTRL to DORV (departure time in both cases, i.e. including dwell time in DORV) was 24 minutes.
• De Beaujeu-OTTW (114 km): If we now look at the fastest scheduled travel time between OTTW and ALEX, we get 44 minutes pre-Covid and 37 minutes as a historic low (achieved by train 39 in October 2005). If we extrapolate this travel time from 87 to 114 km, we obtain a travel time of 55 or 48 minutes (depending on whether we use the pre-covid fastest or the historic fastest).
• DORV-De Beaujeu (47 km): This means that in order to achieve the travel time of 93 minutes in that Globe&Mail article I keep referring to, you would need to achieve a travel time of 14 or 21 minutes. 47 km in 14 minutes would equal an average speed of 202 km/h, which exceeds the maximum speed of VIA's new trainsets, but the same distance in 21 minutes equals an average speed of 137 km/h, which would be slightly less than what 87 km in 37 minutes represented back in 2005 (i.e. 141 km/h).

The above means that HFR needs Track Class 5 and tracks separate from CP's much slower freight trains for most of the distance. Happily, both seems to be achievable at relatively low cost except for a relatively short segment from Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue and across the Ile-Perrot to Dorion. If we assume that the entirety of the $91.5 million is spent on the Winchester Sub alone, we now have a per-mile capital cost of $1.95 million, which is basically half of the per-mile cost estimate for HFR.

Consequently, the construction cost of the Ottawa Bypass would be $284.2 million (representing a cost premium of 13% rather than 3% on the capital cost of the HFR Base Case) and still 29% higher per train-km than the HFR trunk line chosen as the base case. Put differently: total capital costs of the Ottawa Bypass would be three times as high as in the Base Case for the entire OTTW-MTRL segment, despite covering a shorter distance (146 vs. 180 km), and per-train-mile they would be eight times as high:

Metric	HFR TRTO-OTTW	HFR OTTW-MTRL	HFR TRTO-OTTW-MTRL (Base Case)	Ottawa Bypass	vs. HFR without Ottawa Bypass
Capital Cost	$2.1 billion	$91.5 million	$2.2 billion	$284.2 million	+13%
Segment length (km)	400	180	580	146	+25%
Frequencies/day	15	15	15	6	+40%
Trains/year	10,950	10,950	10,950	4,380	+40%
Train-km/year	4,380,000	1,971,000	6,351,000	639,480	+10% (ignoring everything outside the Ottawa Bypass)
Capital cost per km	$5.3 million	$508.3 thousand	$3.8 million	$1.95 million	52% of T-O-M Base Case
Capital cost per year (assuming 40-year asset life)	$52.5 million	$2.29 million	$54.75 million	$7.11 million	+13%
Capital cost per train movement	$4,795	$208.90	$5,003	$1,622	32% of T-O-M Base Case (ignoring everything outside the Ottawa Bypass)
Capital cost per train-km	$11.99	$1.16	$8.62	$11.11	129% of T-O-M Base Case

 

[kEiThZ]

The next obvious question: can ~$300 spent elsewhere, save close to the 15 mins in rolling time that the bypass would save?

 

[Urban Sky]

The next obvious question: can ~$300 spent elsewhere, save close to the 15 mins in rolling time that the bypass would save?

Not to mention that every minute shaved off the T-O-M trunk (rather than an Ottawa Bypass) would not just be saved on MTRL-TRTO, but also on either MTRL-OTTW or OTTW-TRTO...

 

[roger1818]

Thank you for volunteering a modification to my table!, which is highly appreciated!

When looking at that $508.3 thousand per km capital cost, I struggle to believe that you could obtain any guaranteed slots out of the Winchester Sub at such a low-ball capital cost (recall that CN charged VIA $4.5 million for every km of triple-tracking and that was about a decade ago).

Maybe let's try to first break down the travel time between Montreal and Ottawa:

• MTRL-DORV (19 km): If we go to the last pre-Covid schedule, the fastest scheduled travel time from MTRL to DORV (departure time in both cases, i.e. including dwell time in DORV) was 24 minutes.
• De Beaujeu-OTTW (114 km): If we now look at the fastest scheduled travel time between OTTW and ALEX, we get 44 minutes pre-Covid and 37 minutes as a historic low (achieved by train 39 in October 2005). If we extrapolate this travel time from 87 to 114 km, we obtain a travel time of 55 or 48 minutes (depending on whether we use the pre-covid fastest or the historic fastest).
• DORV-De Beaujeu (47 km): This means that in order to achieve the travel time of 93 minutes in that Globe&Mail article I keep referring to, you would need to achieve a travel time of 14 or 21 minutes. 47 km in 14 minutes would equal an average speed of 202 km/h, which exceeds the maximum speed of VIA's new trainsets, but the same distance in 21 minutes equals an average speed of 137 km/h, which would be slightly less than what 87 km in 37 minutes represented back in 2005 (i.e. 141 km/h).

The above means that HFR needs Track Class 5 and tracks separate from CP's much slower freight trains for most of the distance. Happily, both seems to be achievable at relatively low cost except for a relatively short segment from Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue and across the Ile-Perrot to Dorion. If we assume that the entirety of the $91.5 million is spent on the Winchester Sub alone, we now have a per-mile capital cost of $1.95 million, which is basically half of the per-mile cost estimate for HFR.

Consequently, the construction cost of the Ottawa Bypass would be $284.2 million (representing a cost premium of 13% rather than 3% on the capital cost of the HFR Base Case) and still 29% higher per train-km than the HFR trunk line chosen as the base case. Put differently: total capital costs of the Ottawa Bypass would be three times as high as in the Base Case for the entire OTTW-MTRL segment, despite covering a shorter distance (146 vs. 180 km), and per-train-mile they would be eight times as high:

Metric	HFR TRTO-OTTW	HFR OTTW-MTRL	HFR TRTO-OTTW-MTRL (Base Case)	Ottawa Bypass	vs. HFR without Ottawa Bypass
Capital Cost	$2.1 billion	$91.5 million	$2.2 billion	$284.2 million	+13%
Segment length (km)	400	180	580	146	+25%
Frequencies/day	15	15	15	6	+40%
Trains/year	10,950	10,950	10,950	4,380	+40%
Train-km/year	4,380,000	1,971,000	6,351,000	639,480	+10% (ignoring everything outside the Ottawa Bypass)
Capital cost per km	$5.3 million	$508.3 thousand	$3.8 million	$1.95 million	52% of T-O-M Base Case
Capital cost per year (assuming 40-year asset life)	$52.5 million	$2.29 million	$54.75 million	$7.11 million	+13%
Capital cost per train movement	$4,795	$208.90	$5,003	$1,622	32% of T-O-M Base Case (ignoring everything outside the Ottawa Bypass)
Capital cost per train-km	$11.99	$1.16	$8.62	$11.11	129% of T-O-M Base Case

You do bring up some valid points. A couple thoughts though:

First of all, while for HFR OTTW-MTRL, a significant portion of the cost would directed towards DORV-De Beaujeu, I don't think it would be 100%. For one, in order to achieve that historic low travel time of 37 minutes between OTTW and ALEX, some upgrades would be necessary, especially if they are wanting to run 15 trains a day (my thinking is more/longer sidings). I also think some upgrades will be needed to CN's Montreal Sub (especially near where it crosses the Lachine Canal) to manage the extra traffic and allow for a faster approach into Central Station.

Secondly, how much the Winchester sub needs to be upgraded really depends how many trains they want to run along it. If they are only running a couple trains a day, they might (with some quid pro quo as mentioned by crs1026) be able to negotiate a deal with CP to give them priority on the existing track with minimal upgrades. While class 4 certainly isn't optimal, if they don't have to slow down, the top speed of 80 mph (129 km/h) should allow trains to travel from De Beaujeu to Smiths Falls in less than 90 minutes (an average speed of 97 km/h). If they want to run 4-6 trains a day, they would could likely get away with only rebuilding the double track that CP removed (connecting the passing tracks). Only if they wanted full HFR service on the bypass they would likely require fully dedicated track that is independent from CP's track. I agree that last option would be very expensive and the money would be better spent elsewhere..

 

[crs1026]

Secondly, how much the Winchester sub needs to be upgraded really depends how many trains they want to run along it. If they are only running a couple trains a day, they might (with some quid pro quo as mentioned by crs1026) be able to negotiate a deal with CP to give them priority on the existing track with minimal upgrades. While class 4 certainly isn't optimal, if they don't have to slow down, the top speed of 80 mph (129 km/h) should allow trains to travel from De Beaujeu to Smiths Falls in less than 90 minutes (an average speed of 97 km/h). If they want to run 4-6 trains a day, they would could likely get away with only rebuilding the double track that CP removed (connecting the passing tracks). Only if they wanted full HFR service on the bypass they would likely require fully dedicated track that is independent from CP's track. I agree that last option would be very expensive and the money would be better spent elsewhere..

Getting back to Class 5 on the Winchester can’t be that expensive, because there are no major civil projects required…. no new separations, no curves to be eased, no new rail. Perhaps some tie replacement , surfacing, or ballasting… and maybe renewing crossings or fixing low spots. It’s hard to say what CP would ask to maintain that for a decade or more… it certainly implies more maintenance done more often, but not a new investment in bigger or better rails or track materials.

I’m not even sure they need to relay much of the former double track, unless they are building in an option for growth. Once VIA needed to have its trains meet and pass each other, more and longer passing sections might be needed, but a morning, midday, and afternoon service plan leaves CP lots of capacity. There might have to be a one-hour curfew before each VIa slot at each end, to remove any risk of a VIA overtaking a slower freight. Again, there is no need for new grading or culverts so the nominal figure based on Kingston Sub triple tracking is high.

- Paul