VIA Rail

[kEiThZ]

Just a tad over the top with your reply? Perhaps? And not completely accurate. And I am not sure where you found my fantasies of grabbing private assets as they do in CPC China.

Hardly. Thinking that you can casually suggest that the government expropriate the main asset of two of the largest freight railroads in the world deserves an over the top response.

Also, every few months we get the same suggestions from some new character. Just do a search. None of what you suggested is new.

 

[innsertnamehere]

It's not. The entire conjecture is based on throwaway line from the minister that could have easily been a misspeak (maybe he meant 200 kph, as he announced at the launch of HFR?). It's also not reflected in any other communication, project document or leaked report. For example, I would think the REFOI might want to say something about 300 kph speed if something like that is envisioned. It doesn't.

If it's not a misspeak, I suspect it's just a minister talking loosely to get some attention and press.

thus the "if it is truly being pursued now". I'm as skeptical as you are, but I also wouldn't be surprised given the criticism the project has recieved in the media.

If you need to build an entirely new corridor for parts of the line between Peterborough and Ottawa as many suspect, the cost premium of building it to 300km/h instead of 200km/h probably isn't that great to gain the political points of calling it "high speed rail", even if only 100km or so of the 800km line is actually reaching those speeds..

Alternately, many of the stretches of corridor between Ottawa and Montreal are generally straight enough to support HSR operations, provided you were willing to spend the money to eliminate grade crossings.

300km/h rail is a lot more achievable if you are willing to operate at lower speeds in expensive parts. It wouldn't probably add too much cost to add a few stretches at that speed to be able to advertise that the train goes that fast, even if average speeds are much more conventional.

 

[Frank_Lee]

thus the "if it is truly being pursued now". I'm as skeptical as you are, but I also wouldn't be surprised given the criticism the project has recieved in the media.

If you need to build an entirely new corridor for parts of the line between Peterborough and Ottawa as many suspect, the cost premium of building it to 300km/h instead of 200km/h probably isn't that great to gain the political points of calling it "high speed rail", even if only 100km or so of the 800km line is actually reaching those speeds..

I don't want to pile on here, but the cost premium is really quite large, because of the requisite straightening and grade separations (you can go back a couple hundred pages in this forum to see extended discussion). Additionally, and something which cannot be emphasized enough: what matters to travellers are:
1. Reliability
2. Frequency
3. Average Speed
Average speed is mathematically most improved by speeding up the slowest segments in general. Going from 25 to 50 km/h makes a bigger difference to travel time than going from 200 km/h to 300 km/h.

 

[Frank_Lee]

Political points thought is an interesting one, though.

 

[yrt+viva=1system]

How factual this might be or not it does bring up some interesting points. Specifically how majority of the announcements lately are being made under Transport Canada via the Minister.

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/intercity/via-rails-existential-problem-it-never-existed/

The former VIA Rail CEO quit, according to informed speculation, because Transport Canadascooped up VIA Rail’s scheme for a high-frequency rail (HFR) service on dedicated tracks linking Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto.

Garneau’s own writing-on-the-wall was the announcement in March by Transport Minister Omar Alghabra that he was assuming entire control of the HFR project. Garneau didn’t even attend the media event.

 

[kEiThZ]

If you need to build an entirely new corridor for parts of the line between Peterborough and Ottawa as many suspect, the cost premium of building it to 300km/h instead of 200km/h probably isn't that great to gain the political points of calling it "high speed rail", even if only 100km or so of the 800km line is actually reaching those speeds..

The cost jump is definitely going to be substantial. Mostly because 300 kph means acquiring an entirely new corridor. Not just small pieces bypassing zig zagy segments.

Alternately, many of the stretches of corridor between Ottawa and Montreal are generally straight enough to support HSR operations, provided you were willing to spend the money to eliminate grade crossings.

They are straight enough for faster running. I'm not sure they are straight enough for 300 kph. Keep in mind what the required turning radius would be for 300 kph. There's still enough turns in there that would substantially limit speeds. Smoothing them out would require a lot more land acquisition.

Sure the jump from 200 kph to 300 kph doesn't change some demands (like grade separation). But it changes items like curve radii, track protection, etc substantially.

Politically, you have to ask whether the added cost to get a stretch of 300 kph is worthwhile, if those same funds could buy you an extension instead. For example, would you rather have a 100 km stretch east of Peterborough running at 300 kph or an extension to Kitchener? Going at 300 kph vs. 200 kph saves only 10 mins.

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't want to pile on here, but the cost premium is really quite large, because of the requisite straightening and grade separations (you can go back a couple hundred pages in this forum to see extended discussion). Additionally, and something which cannot be emphasized enough: what matters to travellers are:
1. Reliability
2. Frequency
3. Average Speed
Average speed is mathematically most improved by speeding up the slowest segments in general. Going from 25 to 50 km/h makes a bigger difference to travel time than going from 200 km/h to 300 km/h.

Well put. If you look at the proposed lines, the biggest obstacles to increasing average speed are the segments in suburban or exurban areas where track is shared or there are lower speeds imposed/required. There's not nearly as much impact on track that VIA owns. I believe at one point it was suggested that the Ottawa-Montreal segment could cut travel times by 25% (from ~2h to ~1.5h) for $92M. Even if that price has doubled in the last decade, you have to wonder what the value is, after cutting a half hour, in spending maybe $1-2B to then cut another 15-20 mins. Especially when that money could literally fund an extension elsewhere.

 

[just east of the creek]

Hardly. Thinking that you can casually suggest that the government expropriate the main asset of two of the largest freight railroads in the world deserves an over the top response.

Also, every few months we get the same suggestions from some new character. Just do a search. None of what you suggested is new.

I'd like to move on as this exchange is now getting pointless.> when you state that I have casually suggested that the 'government expropriate the main assets'... vs my wordage in using 'their powers to expand ROWs where needed', I think we have lost the thread of this discussion.

But your comments on Morocco are Interesting. I believe from experience that there are (or were) a couple of lines in Turkey that were similar in operation.

 

[kEiThZ]

Political points thought is an interesting one, though.

Is it? I would bet money that politicians will always choose extensions over speed. Especially once they meet a speed that is reasonably practical. Let's say Toronto-Montreal is reduced to ~4h as part of a $12B TOMQ proposal. If the added cost to reduce Toronto-Montreal to 3.5h is say $2-3B and that amount gets them to Kitchener or London, I would bet my next paycheque they choose the extension over cutting Toronto-Montreal. Extensions win votes. Speed doesn't.

 

[Bordercollie]

Well put. If you look at the proposed lines, the biggest obstacles to increasing average speed are the segments in suburban or exurban areas where track is shared or there are lower speeds imposed/required. There's not nearly as much impact on track that VIA owns. I believe at one point it was suggested that the Ottawa-Montreal segment could cut travel times by 25% (from ~2h to ~1.5h) for $92M. Even if that price has doubled in the last decade, you have to wonder what the value is, after cutting a half hour, in spending maybe $1-2B to then cut another 15-20 mins. Especially when that money could literally fund an extension elsewhere.

The Chatham sub is almost completely straight. The only problem is the rural crossings. To allow farm equipment to cross safely, you would need to build large underpasses or elevate the railway. That's going to be expensive, which is why 100mph running for longer distances and less slow orders, better signalling and faster turnouts would be the best solution.

 

[yrt+viva=1system]

Further perusing on Via Rail and the HFR project. For what it's worth:

Canada to Create Separate Railway for Corridor HFR (Updated November 11)​

https://www.railwayage.com/regulatory/canada-to-create-separate-railway-for-corridor-hfr/#

Deprived of the Corridor traffic, VIA Rail would be left only with its money-losing regional and national services, including its low-frequency and often interrupted stainless-steel streamliner The Canadian, which runs in fits and starts between Vancouver and Toronto at the operating whim of its main host railway, CN. This would kill VIA Rail’s commercial viability and eventually the provision of any publicly owned passenger rail beyond the Quebec and Ontario Corridor that spans the essential electoral base of the governing Liberal Party led by Justin Trudeau

Desjardins-Siciliano cannot be entirely unhappy: He is now Canadian CEO for Siemens Mobility, which will inevitably supply the trainsets for HFR, as it does for the current renewal of VIA Rail’s existing Corridor operations. The Siemens trainsets are being built with hybrid internal combustion and pure electrical propulsion systems, easing their eventual transfer to the new HFR entity.

The government’s announcement that 54 companies have expressed interest in the HFR scheme included a specific declaration that VIA Rail’s existing Corridor operations will be subsumed by the new public-private HFR entity:

“Canada expects that operation of Existing VIA Services would be transitioned to the Private Partner … For clarity, Existing VIA Services refers only to the existing passenger railway services operated by VIA Rail within the Corridor.”

Thus expires public ownership of passenger rail in Canada. The eventual total demise of VIA Rail could open the way for the return of other privately operated passenger trains in Canada. The Rocky Mountaineer tourist train could conceivably extend operations eastward from Jasper and Banff to replace The Canadian. Private passenger rail companies could emerge for local services, such as one being promoted for service between Calgary Airport and Banff National Park.

What will VIA ’s mandate be after the bulk of its Corridor services have been superseded by the new HFR entity?

“VIA Rail would continue to be Canada’s national passenger rail provider. Once HFR is operational, VIA Rail is expected to continue operating its existing services outside the Corridor; as well, VIA Rail, with its subsidiary, would be responsible for managing and overseeing the contract with the private partner for the provision of intercity passenger rail services inside the Corridor. VIA Rail’s mandate would continue to be what it is now, and that is to offer safe, accessible, efficient, reliable, sustainable and environmentally friendly intercity passenger rail services that meet the needs of Canadians.”

 

[robmausser]

Further perusing on Via Rail and the HFR project. For what it's worth:

Canada to Create Separate Railway for Corridor HFR (Updated November 11)​

https://www.railwayage.com/regulatory/canada-to-create-separate-railway-for-corridor-hfr/#

These answers don’t say a whole lot more than above. Here they are, for what they’re worth:

Lol what a bunch of morons at Railway age. The answers below say completely different things than what they stated above.

There will be a subsidiary and crown corp of VIA Rail operating the corridor services, not some separate agency and private company taking over the corridor.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

 

[crs1026]

Lol what a bunch of morons at Railway age. The answers below say completely different things than what they stated above.

There will be a subsidiary and crown corp of VIA Rail operating the corridor services, not some separate agency and private company taking over the corridor.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Well, actually what they report is pretty true to what the RFEOI Update (page 34) suggests.

Pretty clear (to me, anyways) that the existing VIA corporate structure and mission is being gutted.

- Paul

 

[Ward8]

I just returned from a trip to Japan with a renewed sense of just how important a quality intercity rail system is and how much freedom we lack here in Canada. I'm very discouraged coming back. I don't fully understand what the prvitzation means for VIA, but I can say wholeheartedly that train travel is not nearly a high enough priority. Between the frecciarosa, the eurostar, and now the Shinkansen, I'm now firmly radicalized as someone who thinks the government should write a blank cheque to modernize travel in this country. The way we travel between our two biggest cities should be viewed by the government, as, and I'm not being hyperbolas, a national emergency.

I would also say improving VIA is such a politically expedient project. From a climate perspective but also from a nation building perspective. If I'm advising the liberals I'm telling them to go to Edmonton and announce that there is going to be a major investment in Alberta and 60 minute travel between cities for half the price of your gas money. Some goes for Ontario/Quebec. They've got a federalism problem and this seems like such a no brainer to me.

Anyway, I realize I'm not really adding anything new to the conversation, other than, I'm a layman and I know a lot of other people who feel the same as me. I think people will respond best to bold and simple plans, and they would welcome ambition.

 

[kEiThZ]

I just returned from a trip to Japan with a renewed sense of just how important a quality intercity rail system is and how much freedom we lack here in Canada. I'm very discouraged coming back. I don't fully understand what the prvitzation means for VIA, but I can say wholeheartedly that train travel is not nearly a high enough priority. Between the frecciarosa, the eurostar, and now the Shinkansen, I'm now firmly radicalized as someone who thinks the government should write a blank cheque to modernize travel in this country. The way we travel between our two biggest cities should be viewed by the government, as, and I'm not being hyperbolas, a national emergency.

Don't think it's a national emergency by any conventional definition. It is an important missing piece of infrastructure though.

And I absolutely share your frustration that develops after travel. One of the most interesting things for me to see, is military colleagues posted in Europe or Asia on exchange or even just long exercises or courses of a few months. They come home redpilled about transit and good transport infrastructure, and completely disappointed in the state of affairs of infrastructure at home. These are people who have probably never thought of rail infrastructure in their lives. The experience changes them. But unfortunately most Canadians will never have that. And plenty who do travel treat Europe and Asia as some kind of theme park with excuses of, "It'll never work here."

I would also say improving VIA is such a politically expedient project. From a climate perspective but also from a nation building perspective. If I'm advising the liberals I'm telling them to go to Edmonton and announce that there is going to be a major investment in Alberta and 60 minute travel between cities for half the price of your gas money. Some goes for Ontario/Quebec. They've got a federalism problem and this seems like such a no brainer to me.

The fundamental problem in Canada is that we somehow reached a national consensus that the federal government doesn't build big infrastructure anymore. So our federal government has been reduced to mostly cutting cheques. Either directly (with the Liberals) or indirectly though tax cuts (with the Conservatives). Neither major party really seems very interested in leading major infrastructure projects.