VIA Rail

[reaperexpress]

We all have our pet greenfield routings (mine is a route NE from Kingston to replace Brockville-Smiths Falls, along Hwy 15 then joining the hydro corridor to Smiths Falls) but when one looks at the infra in the Ottawa area one wonders how much additional and near term service and speed could be done by adding double track/passing loops and grade separations there. There is no greedy railroad baron to pay off, just the will to make it happen. There isn’t even the Ellwood Diamond (junction with O-Train) to consider any more.

Yeah when they announced that the 2021 budget included $491 million for HFR-enabling works, I was really hoping that it would be allocated to track upgrades along the segments which are common to any HFR or HSR alignment, not to mention the existing alignment. But two years later do we have any idea where all that money is supposed to actually go?

The speeds in Ottawa are definitely lower than they need to be given the alignment. Here are the track speeds for Via trains around Ottawa (in mph) according to an old timetable I found.
10 mph = 16 km/h
20 mph = 32 km/h
35 mph = 56 km/h
40 mph = 64 km/h
45 mph = 72 km/h
60 mph = 97 km/h

I assume the 40 limit around Ellwood diamond has been lifted by now, but 45 mph is still way slower than the alignment could support. There are some sharp curves around the Rideau River bridge which may genuinely limit trains to 40 mph, but between there and the 20 mph curve the curves are orders of magnitude wider, so they should be able to support at least 60 mph.

VIA does seem to be protecting for a 60 mph track speed along that segment, based on this condition they imposed on the Ellwood Diamond Grade Separation project:

Increasing the track speed within the station to 20 mph instead of 10 mph would save about 30 seconds, which is a pretty good payoff for what I assume is just a signalling upgrade.

 

[Urban Sky]

If the idea is “why should we pay when HSR magic beans will” I will be very cross.

I suspect it has less to do with which magic beans pay for it and more with how these beans are accounted for: every second of travel time you shave off now can no longer be used to justify HFR/HSR. (Recall that one of the most important assessment criteria is the Benefit-to-Cost-Ratio.)

It therefore is absolutely counter-productive to harvest the proverbial „low-hanging“ fruits now, just like you risk shooting yourself in the foot if you make major investments in segments you hope will one day be bypassed by HSR. That‘s why we need to identify a HFR route and a HSR route at the same time, to identify which segments would be reused by HSR and which ones would be bypassed…

 

[reaperexpress]

I suspect it has less to do with which magic beans pay for it and more with how these beans are accounted for: every second of travel time you shave off now can no longer be used to justify HFR/HSR. (Recall that one of the most important assessment criteria is the Benefit-to-Cost-Ratio.)

It therefore is absolutely counter-productive to harvest the proverbial „low-hanging“ fruits now, just like you risk shooting yourself in the foot if you make major investments in segments you hope will one day be bypassed by HSR. That‘s why we need to identify a HFR route and a HSR route at the same time, to identify which segments would be reused by HSR and which ones would be bypassed…

We are specifically talking about the segments through Ottawa which will not be bypassed by HFR or HSR.

 

[Urban Sky]

We are specifically talking about the segments through Ottawa which will not be bypassed by HFR or HSR.

I know, hence the use of the words „just like“ when making the connection with why I argue so vehemently against electriying non-HSR-compatible segments like the Eastern part of the Havelock Subdivision: „just like you risk shooting yourself in the foot if you make major investments in segments you hope will one day be bypassed by HSR.“

My point is that if you harvest the low-hanging fruits now by fixing a problem for, say, $1 million which generates benefits of, say, $5 million (i.e. a BCR of 5), then you are wasting $4 millions in benefits which could have „cross-subsidized“ an „unprofitable“ upgrade of the HFR project (e.g. an additional siding which costs $4 million, but doesn’t generate any benefits on paper, because operational flexibility is not really monetized) by bundling this easy fix with all the more expensive fixes of buidling a new dedicated infrastructure.

Or let‘s view this on a larger scale: if all the upgrades necessary for HFR between Montreal and Ottawa cost $100 million and generate benefits of $200 million (or 20 minutes of travel time savings), then performing these upgrades now will „withdraw“ $200 millions of the net benefits (or 20 minutes of travel time savings) which could be used to justify HFR (or even HSR).

You will always want to calculate one single BCR (or NPV) for the entire project, because once you provide a breakdown for the various elements, you might end up with only enough funding for what on the paper looks as the „most profitable“ elements…

 

[reaperexpress]

I know, hence the use of the words „just like“ when making the connection with why I argue so vehemently against electriying non-HSR-compatible segments like the Eastern part of the Havelock Subdivision: „just like you risk shooting yourself in the foot if you make major investments in segments you hope will one day be bypassed by HSR.“

My point is that if you harvest the low-hanging fruits now by fixing a problem for, say, $1 million which generates benefits of, say, $5 million (i.e. a BCR of 5), then you are wasting $4 millions in benefits which could have „cross-subsidized“ an „unprofitable“ upgrade of the HFR project (e.g. an additional siding which costs $4 million, but doesn’t generate any benefits on paper, because operational flexibility is not really monetized) by bundling this easy fix with all the more expensive fixes of buidling a new dedicated infrastructure.

Or let‘s view this on a larger scale: if all the upgrades necessary for HFR between Montreal and Ottawa cost $100 million and generate benefits of $200 million (or 20 minutes of travel time savings), then performing these upgrades now will „withdraw“ $200 millions of the net benefits (or 20 minutes of travel time savings) which could be used to justify HFR (or even HSR).

You will always want to calculate one single BCR (or NPV) for the entire project, because once you provide a breakdown for the various segments, you might end up with only enough funding for what on the paper looks as the „most profitable“ segments…

But you're assuming that the strength of the BCR directly relates to the likelihood of getting funding. Based on all the previous HSR studies, which also found really strong BCR for HSR from Toronto to Montreal, the BCR isn't the issue. The issue is simply the sheer size of the pricetag. Splitting the investment into smaller chunks, one of which was already budgeted two years ago, helps chip away at the massive startup cost of an HSR program.

 

[dowlingm]

I suspect it has less to do with which magic beans pay for it and more with how these beans are accounted for: every second of travel time you shave off now can no longer be used to justify HFR/HSR. (Recall that one of the most important assessment criteria is the Benefit-to-Cost-Ratio.)

perhaps. But I am cynical enough to think maybe we won‘t get HSR, or even HFR, and then we will still have single track between Fallowfield and Ottawa, and all the service limitations that entails for all the years before that penny drops.

 

[crs1026]

perhaps. But I am cynical enough to think maybe we won‘t get HSR, or even HFR, and then we will still have single track between Fallowfield and Ottawa, and all the service limitations that entails for all the years before that penny drops.

I'm even a little more jaded about VIA's Cinderella-like treatment.within the federal bureaucracy.

The likely process would be for VIA to include an item in its annual business plan and capital spending request, which would work its way through any number of Ministries who prepare spending estimates.

The rationale would be something like "This investment will cut x minutes off our trip times, which will make our service more marketable, which will increase passenger revenue by y" and maybe even "The investment will reduce maintenance and operating expense by ...."

In a private business, where the whole intent is to build business and net income, that justification would have an obvious appeal, and there would be a fair and open minded exploration of the BCR numbers and potential returns.

In VIA's case, where the bureaucrats have no fiduciary duty to help anyone grow their business, and who are happy if VIA requires an operating subsidy -which they can then point at as grounds for disliking VIA altogether - making VIA more successful is akin to the two big sisters buying Cinderella a gown and shoes so she can attend the ball and steal the handsome prince away from them, (and from the airlines).

Sadly, the rationale would not say "because the existing speeds are ridiculously low and an embarrassment to Canadians and a prime example of how rinky-dink someparts of the existing Corridor are" would not appear in the request, although it is unquestionably a true statement.

- Paul

 

[TerryJohnson]

PS - To put it another way, if the price rises from say $10B to $20B becauae of a desire for HSR, then I would argue there is greater benefit in terms of carbon and quality of life by spending $15B of that on H(whatever) and $5B on regional services between Kingston, London, and Niagara.

Agreed. The usually way of evaluating projects is to look at the cost:benefit and rarely does opportunity cost get fully considered. One of the reasons for keeping HFR cheap at the beginning was so Ottawa's cupboard wouldn't be left bare and it could be the start of a passenger ail resurgence, not the end of one.

 

[TerryJohnson]

Well, the three-year development phase already throws the cards in the air, as does having to plan the Highway 7 bypass around Sharbot Lake.



So, are the proponents free to offer any new fresh ideas or are they already constrained by a few things?

Are they free to propose the added up-speed to the Tapscott-Havelock portion to full HSR? That might put an end to freight on that line, and make GO service impractical......but the improved trip time might justify the extra $B or so.

I'm not arguing for an Ecotrainish alignment, but I would think the jury ought to still be out. One would assume that a non-Peterboro HSR route would have to use an existing corridor until it crossed Durham Region, so not really HSR in that zone....but once east of Newcastle, there's an awful lot of open space. I'm not sure the rationale for non-Peterborough is valid if about land costs or avoiding built up areas.... more about those level crossings and possibly what it would take to find a straight route. Certainly it would not work as HSR alongside CN/CP, but further north, south of the Shield? Let's see some data.

If the team has already converged on a solution that assumes a non-HSR Peterborough routing west of Havelock and new construction around Sharbot Lake, that's fine, but then one must accept that the only variables remaining for the proposals are how long the new section needs to be and whether the new section is HSR or not..

- Paul

According to various presentations that have been given and discussions with the HFR Team there are some invariants, such as serving the six major cities in order, and continuing at least the current service level on the lakeshore, in addition to electrification and 200 km/h+ on at least some parts of the route. This suggests we can expect to see alignment adjustments to avoid current curvature and obstacles, but not major route changes... the cutoff to join the CPKC sub west of Alexandria might or might not be something a proponent could explore, and of course there's the challenge of get through Montreal and I will be impressed is someone has a good version of that which doesn't involve launching a TBM.

Given the long history of HSR studies in Canada, also I expect people with more knowledge then myself will have considered all reasonably feasible routes by now, and that the JPO would have considered all that prior research before confirming Peterborough as a requirement.

 

[TerryJohnson]

VIA does seem to be protecting for a 60 mph track speed along that segment, based on this condition they imposed on the Ellwood Diamond Grade Separation project:
View attachment 502658

Increasing the track speed within the station to 20 mph instead of 10 mph would save about 30 seconds, which is a pretty good payoff for what I assume is just a signalling upgrade.

Was any thought given to leaving the Trillium Line in place and raising the VIA line instead? It might not have cost less upfront, but it could've taken care of a couple of road bridges that would need to be rebuild for HFR anyway.
Also, the timber walkway at that bridge was so well built it is already falling apart...

 

[reaperexpress]

Was any thought given to leaving the Trillium Line in place and raising the VIA line instead? It might not have cost less upfront, but it could've taken care of a couple of road bridges that would need to be rebuild for HFR anyway.
Also, the timber walkway at that bridge was so well built it is already falling apart...

Yes they did evaluate that option.

 

[TerryJohnson]

Yes they did evaluate that option.

Is there a public copy of that somewhere?

 

[reaperexpress]

I found this video a useful summary of the HFR vs HSR history in the Toronto-Montreal corridor.

Also helps that it's from some of my favourite YouTubers!

This was already posted recently and we already discussed it.

Is there a public copy of that somewhere?

The option is described in the document I linked in that post.

I think I did see a final report somewhere with the results of this analysis. Try searching the City of Ottawa site.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I’ve taken an overnight sleeper train from Zagreb to Nuremberg and it was fun. The difference is in Canada, a single-night sleeper train from Toronto would get you maybe to Regina or Miramichi. Not exactly hopping places.

One thing I’d love to see VIA do is motorcycle trains. It would be a great way to tour rural Canada without needing to ride there. The Amtrak auto train does this, sort of, with bikes lashed down onto pallets, but I’m more thinking of a more flexible system where bikes could get off and on along the route.

Even at relatively conservative 250 Km/Hr speeds and night train out of Toronto Union would get you to, Halifax, Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa, London, Windsor, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Regina, Boston, NY, Philadelphia, Washington, Pittsburgh, Chicago, St Louis, etc, etc, etc. Yes there are issues with serving American cities but you'd be able to reach pretty much any major city from the mid west to the Eastern Seaboard.

In fact Toronto to NYC seems like a no brainer sleeper train. Leave Toronto Friday evening, arrive in NYC Sat morning. Spend Sat/Sun in NYC, take night train back to Toronto and be home Monday morning.

 

[reaperexpress]

Even at relatively conservative 250 Km/Hr speeds and night train out of Toronto Union would get you to, Halifax, Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa, London, Windsor, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Regina, Boston, NY, Philadelphia, Washington, Pittsburgh, Chicago, St Louis, etc, etc, etc. Yes there are issues with serving American cities but you'd be able to reach pretty much any major city from the mid west to the Eastern Seaboard.

In fact Toronto to NYC seems like a no brainer sleeper train. Leave Toronto Friday evening, arrive in NYC Sat morning. Spend Sat/Sun in NYC, take night train back to Toronto and be home Monday morning.

I think the issue with many of these places is that they're actually too close together for an overnight train to be competitive. People sleep for about 8 hours, so the trip should ideally be around 10 to 14 hours long.

Toronto to Montreal is only 5 hours by train, so if you left Toronto at 22:00, you'd arrive there at 03:00 which does not sound like fun. This is why the VIA Enterprise sleeper train along that route sat in a siding for several hours along the way. The problem is that the time spent sitting in the siding is still time you need to pay the crew, and more importantly it's time that isn't spent getting a head start relative to the competing transport modes. In this case, the train takes 10 hours but driving would only take 6.

A better option would be Toronto to Chicago, which actually is 10 hours away by train. In this case, driving would actually be 10 hours as well, which gives the train more of a competitive advantage than the Montreal example above. The competing flights would also be slightly longer and theoretically more expensive.

There are many cross-border routes which fall nicely in the sweet spot with major cities 10 hours apart by rail, like Toronto - Chicago, Toronto - New York, Montreal - New York, Montreal - Boston, etc. The main obstacle in these cases is the American border which lies partway along the route. Requiring passengers to get up in the middle of the night to clear customs would destroy the attractivess of a sleeper service, so pre-clearance facilities in Toronto and Montréal would be a prerequisite for those services to be successful. There is one being planned in Montréal, which should spark conversations about the Montréal-based routes, but progress on that facility has been absolutely glacial.