Quebec-Windsor Corridor

[nfitz]

When is your anecdotal experience from? Because if it's post-pandemic, then the commuter train service hasn't existed, which would entirely explain why people aren't commuting on the train.

What happened to the train that some commuters used, that used to get to Union at around 10 AM?

 

[reaperexpress]

What happened to the train that some commuters used, that used to get to Union at around 10 AM?

Train 41 is clearly visible in both the pre- and post-pandemic timetables that I posted, but it didn't/doesn't stop at Napanee or Trenton.

 

[Urban Sky]

Are they "on loan" to the corridor due to the shortage of equipment?

Some HEP-I cars have been assigbed to supplement the Corridor fleet, which has enabled the steady growth in Corrudor frequencies pre-Covid.

Now that the Rens are finished are the LRC'S left?

Only those which haven‘t been condemned yet - and it‘s abundantly clear that no LRC will remain in service once the delivery of the new Corridor Fleet is completed.

Any progress on the rebuilt F40ph? (re-rebuilt). Is that project funded?

No idea, but I‘d assume that some units will need to receive another rebuild if they are to last until the 2035 deadline for the delivery of the new non-Corridor fleet…

Fallowfield doesn't matter because trains serve the station from both tracks and it's single track between there and Brockville regardless.

Sorry, I meant Smiths Falls, not: Fallowfield.

Port Hope is actually on the north track, not the southern one, which is a big nuisance. The old train 48 needed to be on the south track at Port Hope, switch to the north for Trenton, back to the south for Napanee and back north at Brockville.

You seem to mean Trenton Junction. I thought I recalled that one station was on the Northern track, but couldn’t figure out which one, while on my phone.

So to reduce switching conflicts it would be good to relocate Trenton such that the platform is on the south track, like Port Hope, Napanee and Gananoque. That way in the morning the westbound commuter trains can stick to the south track, with eastbound trains on the north, and vice versa in the PM peak.

Yeah, moving Trenton Junction would be good operationally, but not sure who would fund the move. However, I‘ve been made aware in the meanwhile that Gananoque, Napanee, Trenton Junction and Port Hope have a crosswalk which allows station stops on the second track, but at the cost of having to halt all other (i.e., including: freight) traffic on the track nearest to the actual station facilities, which still disrupts CN‘s operations…

Current configuration:

Thank you for this track configuration chart, maybe you can add these crosswalks, but not sure how best to indicate them…

 

[dowlingm]

The questions about Napanee and Trenton beg the question of what the lower limit of passengers worth stopping for is. Napanee has a small station, limited parking, same with Trenton. I perhaps wrongly assume local transit isn’t a big contributor. I do wonder about the necessity to stop at Smiths Falls but perhaps that’s recognition that 41 doesn’t?

8.48am rules out everyone with an 8.30 or 8.45 start, and hardly great for 9am unless your work is actually at Union. The pressure is going to be on VIA to find a way to hit a more 651 timeframe. But it’s also reasonable to let VIA run this a while and see how reliable the timings on this pattern can be.

@reaperexpress that’s an interesting map of the HF/SR alignment. Is there a project document somewhere which explains the choice, such as the deviation north at Glen Tay?

 

[CapitalSeven]

The HFR proposal has the Via mainline remaining north of the CPKC line at all times, avoiding the need to have any grade separation at all. As long as the HFR option remains on the table, a flyover wouldn't be an attractive solution since it could become superfluous in the future.

View attachment 560341

Except, there will still be Kingston-Ottawa trains travelling the existing route, though less frequently, after HFR, and there is a strong possibility of Toronto-Montreal trains traversing the yard on the CP route. So there could be more trains causing a conflict rather than fewer, and this would render any sort of bypass even more complicated.

 

[Urban Sky]

Except, there will still be Kingston-Ottawa trains travelling the existing route, though less frequently, after HFR, and there is a strong possibility of Toronto-Montreal trains traversing the yard on the CP route. So there could be more trains causing a conflict rather than fewer, and this would render any sort of bypass even more complicated.

There absolutely isn‘t any economic or commercial rationale to invest in infrastructure upgrades for bypassing Ottawa, given the small potential number of direct trains and the limited ridership potential for such direct trains, as we‘ve already discussed to death here on UT and elsewhere (just search the „VIA Rail“ thread for „Ottawa Bypass“)…

 

[smallspy]

Fallowfield doesn't matter because trains serve the station from both tracks.....

That's not specifically true.

Yes, Fallowfield has two tracks and two "platforms". But due to the rules only one train can service the station at a time. If trains are to meet there, then one needs to be held out of the station while the other makes its stop.

Low hanging fruit here, but the upgrading of the second track to a full platform with grade-separated access to it from the station building would be welcome.

Dan

 

[CapitalSeven]

There absolutely isn‘t any economic or commercial rationale to invest in infrastructure upgrades for bypassing Ottawa, given the small potential number of direct trains and the limited ridership potential for such direct trains, as we‘ve already discussed to death here on UT and elsewhere (just search the „VIA Rail“ thread for „Ottawa Bypass“)…

Don't shout at me, it's the people responsible for building it who added that line to the map. Discussing something to death in this talk shop doesn't make the question settled in the real world.

 

[Urban Sky]

Don't shout at me, it's the people responsible for building it who added that line to the map. Discussing something to death in this talk shop doesn't make the question settled in the real world.

The people who put that line on that map are those responsible for promoting the project (i.e. the HFR-TGF team), as the people who will be in charge of funding, designing, constructing and operating the project (i.e., whoever wins the ongoing RFQ/RFP-process) have yet to be found. Any proponent will consider the incremental costs and revenues of an Ottawa Bypass, but nobody with any advanced understanding of the Economics of building and operating intercity passenger rail projects will expect that building a bypass and depriving selected trains of any Ottawa ridership will stand a chance in comparison with the obvious alternative: increasing the frequency of Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto trains and shaving travel times for all Montreal-Toronto services (and not just a tiny number of Express services).

The Economics of planes (with their 78-seat vehicle sizes and no right-of-way construction costs) are fundamentally different from those of trains (with much larger vehicle sizes and massive ROW costs). Referring to a line drawn on a map shared with the public does not mean that that connection stands a chance in the real world.

 

[reaperexpress]

That's not specifically true.

Yes, Fallowfield has two tracks and two "platforms". But due to the rules only one train can service the station at a time. If trains are to meet there, then one needs to be held out of the station while the other makes its stop.

Low hanging fruit here, but the upgrading of the second track to a full platform with grade-separated access to it from the station building would be welcome.

Dan

Yes I'm well aware of how Fallowfield operates, in fact I made these diagrams illustrating the operation for an earlier discussion on UT.

I didn't think it was necessary to go into every possible detail when simply discussing the places where trains are constrained to a single track.

Sorry, I meant Smiths Falls, not: Fallowfield.

Ah okay, that makes more sense. But in that case there is still a single track segment between Smiths Falls and Brockville regardless so switching tracks is not much of an inconvenience. It's mostly key that they avoid scheduling two trains stopping at the station within a short time period.

You seem to mean Trenton Junction. I thought I recalled that one station was on the Northern track, but couldn’t figure out which one, while on my phone.

Oh yeah, oops. I did mean Trenton Junction. I've edited the post now.

Yeah, moving Trenton Junction would be good operationally, but not sure who would fund the move. However, I‘ve been made aware in the meanwhile that Gananoque, Napanee, Trenton Junction and Port Hope have a crosswalk which allows station stops on the second track, but at the cost of having to halt all other (i.e., including: freight) traffic on the track nearest to the actual station facilities, which still disrupts CN‘s operations…

Yeah, I'd heard about that operation but given that the operation would occupy both mainline tracks (as opposed to Fallowfield where it only occupies one mainline track and one siding), it's presumably more of a 'last resort' situation.

Thank you for this track configuration chart, maybe you can add these crosswalks, but not sure how best to indicate them…

I could show them as little highlights across the track similar to the diagrams earlier in this post.

 

[CapitalSeven]

The people who put that line on that map are those responsible for promoting the project (i.e. the HFR-TGF team), as the people who will be in charge of funding, designing, constructing and operating the project (i.e., whoever wins the ongoing RFQ/RFP-process) have yet to be found. Any proponent will consider the incremental costs and revenues of an Ottawa Bypass, but nobody with any advanced understanding of the Economics of building and operating intercity passenger rail projects will expect that building a bypass and depriving selected trains of any Ottawa ridership will stand a chance in comparison with the obvious alternative: increasing the frequency of Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto trains and shaving travel times for all Montreal-Toronto services (and not just a tiny number of Express services).

The Economics of planes (with their 78-seat vehicle sizes and no right-of-way construction costs) are fundamentally different from those of trains (with much larger vehicle sizes and massive ROW costs). Referring to a line drawn on a map shared with the public does not mean that that connection stands a chance in the real world.

That's a coherent and logical argument. But here is some text from
the Request for Qualifications on the requirements.

Faster service with shorter journey times between Major Cities (Québec City, Montréal, Ottawa and Toronto) that are less than:
o 4h10 between Toronto and Montréal
o 2h55 between Toronto and Ottawa
o 1h45 between Ottawa and Montréal

Note that Toronto-Ottawa plus Ottawa-Montreal equals 4h40 minutes, and with a stop in Ottawa is getting on for 5 hours, whereas Toronto Montreal has to be 4h10 at most. If these criteria stand (good question...) the proponent has either to shave of 40-50 minutes somewhere along the road (a faster 250 kph line, no intermediate stops) or take the "bypass" route.

Getting the speed out of the Peterborough to Smith's Falls segment is going to be difficult, and trains will have to slow from probably Richmond, past Fallowfield, and all the way through Ottawa even if running express to Montreal, and likely quite a bit of double tracking would be needed given the mix of fast and slower trains.

While the faster (near-)HSR possibilities are appealing, they will also be a lot more expensive, and the Feds might simply choke and stick with a 200 KPH solution. If so, bypassing Ottawa could well be the only way to meet the 4h10 mark. They could abandon that and say that all the money spent buys Toronto-Montreal trains that are still about 5 hours. Difficult choice, but I think it's a real one. We aren't privy to any discussions about use of non-VIA tracks held among the government, the proponents, and the railways that might influence the solution.

 

[crs1026]

While the faster (near-)HSR possibilities are appealing, they will also be a lot more expensive, and the Feds might simply choke and stick with a 200 KPH solution. If so, bypassing Ottawa could well be the only way to meet the 4h10 mark. They could abandon that and say that all the money spent buys Toronto-Montreal trains that are still about 5 hours. Difficult choice, but I think it's a real one. We aren't privy to any discussions about use of non-VIA tracks held among the government, the proponents, and the railways that might influence the solution.

The missing bit in that argument is - an Ottawa bypass would need to not only meet the 4:10 target, it would have to do so with sufficient frequency to represent "HFR" between T-M.

One can imagine convincing CP (maybe) to accept one or two bypass trains per day each way....but a more frequent service would demand a lot of upgrading to create the necessary capacity for frequent service on top of freight. And the cost of that envelope becomes a comparison point for either a) keeping through T-M service on an upgraded CN line (an alternative we are trying to escape from) or b) putting the same money into the Ottawa-Montreal line which VIA already owns, and reaping time savings there.

Any plan to reroute the line through or around Smiths Falls adds just that much more to that price tag.

So while the bypass may have an internally consistent rationale, it seems like the least likely option to be selected. As noted, it was the product of bureaucrats drawing lines on a map.

- Paul

 

[dowlingm]

And the cost of that envelope becomes a comparison point for either a) keeping through T-M service on an upgraded CN line (an alternative we are trying to escape from) or b) putting the same money into the Ottawa-Montreal line which VIA already owns, and reaping time savings there.

But VIA only owns Ottawa-Coteau. From Coteau on, VIA is as much prisoner of a host railroad as if it were running over/beside CP Winchester, no?

 

[Urban Sky]

But VIA only owns Ottawa-Coteau. From Coteau on, VIA is as much prisoner of a host railroad as if it were running over/beside CP Winchester, no?

Indeed, corridor-sharing for ~60 km (MTRL-COTO/DeBeaujeu) is less disruptive than for ~200 km (MTRL-Winchester-SMTF), let alone: ~500 km (MTRL-Kingston-Pickering).

Granted, the Kingston alignment allows to stop at different cities, but the entire HFR model of seperating primary (T-O, T-M and O-M) from secondary markets (anything from TRTO, OTTW and MTRL to anywhere else) and having local services (like 54 and 48 today) focus on tertiary markets (anything neither involving TRTO, OTTW and MTRL) falls apart the moment you fail to unify the T-O, T-M and O-M Express services to a single T-O-M spine…

 

[roger1818]

But VIA only owns Ottawa-Coteau. From Coteau on, VIA is as much prisoner of a host railroad as if it were running over/beside CP Winchester, no?

My fantasy would be for CPCK to move their main line onto the south shore to bypass the island of Montreal. CPKC's track (Winchester, Vaudreuil, and Westmount Subs) east of the Alexandra Sub could be taken over by VIA (and Exo) to ensure reliable operations to and on the island.

Freight access to the island could be maintained for local deliveries either after hours or via their Saint-Laurent Railway Bridge (on the Adirondack sub). It then might make sense for CPKC to move the Cote St. Luke yard to the south shore, freeing the land up for development.

In a perfect world, the same would be done with CN's Kingston Sub on the island to give VIA/Exo control of quadruple track, allowing VIA to easily pass Exo trains and for frequencies of both to increase. This might be a harder sell though, given the way CN's network is laid out on the island.