VIA Rail

[SashaLemon]

Not a bad statement of where we are at, but I was actually disappointed in the writer's summation because it lapsed back into the old "passenger trains lose money, VIA loses money" thing.

Maybe the writer ought to investigate whether Ontario's planned Highway 413 will "lose money".


- Paul

You see that 8 billion dollars will umm... help the economy?

But a train, oh heavens be!! It has to make money!! It has to make money, it in no way what so ever benefits the economy.

 

[kEiThZ]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1684382988010766340

https://twitter.com/x/status/1684621116524969984

 

[SashaLemon]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1684382988010766340

https://twitter.com/x/status/1684621116524969984

 

[roger1818]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1684382988010766340

https://twitter.com/x/status/1684621116524969984

I prefer reading what people say, not other people's interpretation of their words. Unfortunately my French isn't very good, so I had to use Google Trnaslate, and here is its translation of his words:

"We know that there is a lot of interest in a high-speed train," conceded the Minister. But for that, it must make sense from an economic point of view and Social. Communities like Laval, Trois-Rivières. Peterborough... We need the Re-join. they must be served, and that. it's not negotiable

TBH, I don't disagree with what he is actually saying. If the choice is have HSR or serve communities like "Laval, Trois-Rivières. or Peterborough" then I would say lets do HFR. If we can do both then great. One thing a lot of HSR zealotsadvocates here in North America fail to realize is that in most countries with HSR, it supplements frequent, intercity service, not replace it. Building a fast, frequent and reliable intercity service is a good stepping stone to HSR and leapfrogging over it won't serve us well.

 

[SashaLemon]

I prefer reading what people say, not other people's interpretation of their words. Unfortunately my French isn't very good, so I had to use Google Trnaslate, and here is its translation of his words:


TBH, I don't disagree with what he is actually saying. If the choice is have HSR or serve communities like "Laval, Trois-Rivières. or Peterborough" then I would say lets do HFR. If we can do both then great. One thing a lot of HSR zealotsadvocates here in North America fail to realize is that in most countries with HSR, it supplements frequent, intercity service, not replace it. Building a fast, frequent and reliable intercity service is a good stepping stone to HSR and leapfrogging over it won't serve us well.

Why spend all the money building "sort of high speed rail" and not go all the way when you are building a greenfield rail line connecting the two largest cities in the country?

 

[crs1026]

Why spend all the money building "sort of high speed rail" and not go all the way when you are building a greenfield rail line connecting the two largest cities in the country?

Because you may be more able to justify the lesser expense to a skeptical electorate. Or even a different Cabinet with lower aspirations and more fiscal restraint.

We don't know that the current government, with its freespending mentality, will be with us much longer. Even within the current governing party, other decisionmakers may emerge with diverging fiscal views.

- Paul

 

[SashaLemon]

Because you may be more able to justify the lesser expense to a skeptical electorate. Or even a different Cabinet with lower aspirations and more fiscal restraint.

We don't know that the current government, with its freespending mentality, will be with us much longer. Even within the current governing party, other decisionmakers may emerge with diverging fiscal views.

- Paul

Can we reach a compromise?

 

[generalcanada]

uuh why is this a choice? why not have faster HSR trains and express service between the major cities and slower "all-stops" trains between the smaller cities? is the track capacity an issue?
How frequent is "high frequency"? is track capacity an issue?

 

[reaperexpress]

uuh why is this a choice? why not have faster HSR trains and express service between the major cities and slower "all-stops" trains between the smaller cities? is the track capacity an issue?
How frequent is "high frequency"? is track capacity an issue?

If we're talking HSR then we would presumably build enough capacity to have a mix of stopping patterns. But the original HFR proposal likely would have been an hourly service on a single track line, so the stopping pattern would be locked in by the position of the passing tracks.

The other consideration is the alignment. If you want to serve a city or town, you probably want to go through its centre, which will generally result in sharp curves and speed restrictions due to following an existing alignment. If your top concern is speed between major cities you would skirt around the town and maybe build a park and ride station vaguely near it.

 

[DSCToronto]

Why spend all the money building "sort of high speed rail" and not go all the way when you are building a greenfield rail line connecting the two largest cities in the country?

Because you still need to provide transit for those in (or going to) mid-sized cities en route (e.g. Kingston). As noted above, in Europe there is HSR between major cities and local service feeding passengers to it via slower 'local' trains. Can our population support both?

 

[Northern Light]

To further what @reaperexpress has said above; you can build to an HSR standard and offer lesser, included services; you cannot build to the lesser standard and include HSR.

****

To augment what @crs1026 has said.

The base allocation in the RFP of 12B in government subsidy was the HFR option.

I can guarantee you that any materially 'enhanced' or HSR/HSR-lite option will be vastly more expensive.

That is not to suggest it ought not to be done, that's a matter of weighing options once everything in on the table, both on the rail side, and in terms of Canada's other priorities once this project is at a ready-to-go stage.

My own feeling is that we may end up with HFR+; which would be a single segment of line capable of HSR speeds on 'opening day'; and rolling stock that can support that option; while anything more would be ' future phases'.

I suspect that might be the most prudent balance; but again, details are needed before drawing emphatic conclusions.

 

[roger1818]

Why spend all the money building "sort of high speed rail" and not go all the way when you are building a greenfield rail line connecting the two largest cities in the country?

The plan is to mostly following existing or previous right of ways. There may be some opportunity to optimize the routing for improved speed, but it will be a lot more affordable to follow the right of way as there was a reason it used that route in the first place (not to mention expropriation costs).

 

[SashaLemon]

Because you still need to provide transit for those in (or going to) mid-sized cities en route (e.g. Kingston). As noted above, in Europe there is HSR between major cities and local service feeding passengers to it via slower 'local' trains. Can our population support both?

The mid-size cities would have stations on the line. We don't exactly need lots of "local services" in the boonies because there are not a lot of reasonably sized towns other then the ones we would have directly on the line. They only have all those local lines because there is a high density of small towns and villages. But that should not stop us from providing this service between a few major cities because the lack of tiny villages will not actually impact ridership very much.

 

[generalcanada]

was hfr a single track line? i was under the impression the plan was always to double track and upgrade the existing line?
aside from montreal and ottawa which towns have sharp curves incompatible with hsr?

The assumption is that it will be double tracked no?

 

[DSCToronto]

The mid-size cities would have stations on the line. We don't exactly need lots of "local services" in the boonies because there are not a lot of reasonably sized towns other then the ones we would have directly on the line. They only have all those local lines because there is a high density of small towns and villages. But that should not stop us from providing this service between a few major cities because the lack of tiny villages will not actually impact ridership very much.

Of course you can have both but too often the discussion is one or the other. Many mid-sized European cities do not have HSR stops but they DO have frequent service to the nearest HSR node. Do we have enough population density to support this?, I am not sure but it is certainly possible (and desirable) for many places. Of course, at some point HSR could be so frequent that 'local trains' could not use the same rails but we are a long way from that!