VIA Rail

[ErieHall]

The government selected three consortia to bid on a high-frequency rail project between Quebec City and Toronto. A source close to the file said the bidding consortia warned Ottawa that ridership would be lower with a high-frequency train than with a high-speed one, since customers are looking for the shortest possible trip.
...
According to a government source, the consortia's work demonstrated that the high-speed rail option was "much less expensive than originally anticipated."

I might be reading too much into this, but it kind of sounds like the bidders didn't believe the HFR proposal was viable. On the other hand they do think that HSR would actually be viable.

The point is, HFR isn't actually the "cheaper" option.

 

[CapitalSeven]

The assumption HFR was 2/3 of the benefit with 1/3 of the cost, or something along those fractional lines. It sounds as though the bidders and the feds now think the math is different, and that the extra speed will sell enough extra tickets to make it worthwhile.

It will be interesting to see what the solutions are for getting in and out of Toronto and Montreal, which could make or break some of the speed assumptions, and how on earth they are going to make Peterborough to Perth fast.

 

[Frank_Lee]

The assumption HFR was 2/3 of the benefit with 1/3 of the cost, or something along those fractional lines. It sounds as though the bidders and the feds now think the math is different, and that the extra speed will sell enough extra tickets to make it worthwhile.

It will be interesting to see what the solutions are for getting in and out of Toronto and Montreal, which could make or break some of the speed assumptions, and how on earth they are going to make Peterborough to Perth fast.

My suspicion is that they think they'll need an entirely new tunnel and approach into Montreal, which helps make the leap to HSR + electrification more reasonable.

 

[Urban Sky]

My suspicion is that they think they'll need an entirely new tunnel and approach into Montreal, which helps make the leap to HSR + electrification more reasonable.

I don’t see why a new tunnel to Gare Centrale would be necessary: it’s unnecessary for Montreal-Toronto and no amount of travel time savings for QBEC-MTRL will be able to even remotely justify spending something crazy like $10 billion on a new tunnel…

 

[Frank_Lee]

I don’t see why a new tunnel to Gare Centrale would be necessary: it’s unnecessary for Montreal-Toronto and no amount of travel time savings for QBEC-MTRL will be able to even remotely justify spending something crazy like $10 billion on a new tunnel…

Whether Tunnel or not, I'm assuming that electrification without batteries or dual mode locomotives would prohibit sharing any trackage with CP or CN because of dual stack containers (at least that's been the refrain of class 1s over the past decade).

 

[Urban Sky]

Whether Tunnel or not, I'm assuming that electrification without batteries or dual mode locomotives would prohibit sharing any trackage with CP or CN because of dual stack containers (at least that's been the refrain of class 1s over the past decade).

The idea of building a rail corridor from Montreal and Toronto which doesn’t share any ROWs with either CN or CPKC is rather delusional. We thankfully don’t have incompatible track gauges (like in Japan or Spain) which would force building dedicated into metropolitan centers…

 

[roger1818]

The assumption HFR was 2/3 of the benefit with 1/3 of the cost, or something along those fractional lines. It sounds as though the bidders and the feds now think the math is different, and that the extra speed will sell enough extra tickets to make it worthwhile.

Or more likely, that they can charge enough of a premium on HSR tickets to make the extra cost worthwhile. If they can do Toronto-Montreal in 3 hours (and less to Ottawa), they can charge more than the airlines do and still be an attractive option. With HFR, they need to be price competitive with driving, which makes it harder to make as much profit per person. As we have learned with Hwy 407, if they can double the price and still get more than half as many riders, it makes things more profitable.

 

[roger1818]

Whether Tunnel or not, I'm assuming that electrification without batteries or dual mode locomotives would prohibit sharing any trackage with CP or CN because of dual stack containers (at least that's been the refrain of class 1s over the past decade).

Railways can run double stacks on electrified lines. It just needs to be a design requirement.

 

[crs1026]

Railways can run double stacks on electrified lines. It just needs to be a design requirement.

I'm not so sure that what the railways fear is an engineering problem (that design problem is already solved, as the image demonstrates).

The problem is when someone points out that our railways haul unit trains of propane, and crude oil, and ethanol, and long cuts of many hazardous materials..... and therefore a Gordian Knot of rules and regulations are needed to manage the risks of contact with a 25kv power source..

Getting those rules through Transport Canada, and maybe an insurer or two.....that's what to fear.

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

Whether Tunnel or not, I'm assuming that electrification without batteries or dual mode locomotives would prohibit sharing any trackage with CP or CN because of dual stack containers (at least that's been the refrain of class 1s over the past decade).

Neither CN nor CP have ever said such a thing.

Railways can run double stacks on electrified lines. It just needs to be a design requirement.

It doesn't even necessarily need to be a design requirement per se. Just look at all of the trackage around Philadelphia - almost all of it has overhead wire above it, and a lot of it runs double-stacks and autoracks every day, even though the wire installation predates those railcar designs by many dozens of years.

I'm not so sure that what the railways fear is an engineering problem (that design problem is already solved, as the image demonstrates).

The problem is when someone points out that our railways haul unit trains of propane, and crude oil, and ethanol, and long cuts of many hazardous materials..... and therefore a Gordian Knot of rules and regulations are needed to manage the risks of contact with a 25kv power source..

Getting those rules through Transport Canada, and maybe an insurer or two.....that's what to fear.

- Paul

Oddly enough, that doesn't seem to be as much of a concern to the railways. The standards around 25kV overhead are extremely well defined. Hazardous materials are carried every single day under overhead wire in Europe by both diesel and electric locomotives.

No, the bigger concern for CN and CP is how the overhead - and more importantly, the ancillary structures likes poles and gantries - will affect their maintenance and clean-up operations. Will the cleanup of a derailment require additional downtime in order to restring the wire, in the event that it might interfere with the cranes and other equipment?

Dan

 

[Frank_Lee]

Railways can run double stacks on electrified lines. It just needs to be a design requirement.

Certainly, it's just often trotted out as an obstacle by RRs (e.g. NS). It's motivated reasoning for sure, but I assume that CN and CP would reach for everything try to extract as much as possible in return for building infrastructure on their RoW, even if the infrastructure on its own provides some benefit (e.g. flyovers).

Neither CN nor CP have ever said such a thing.


It doesn't even necessarily need to be a design requirement per se. Just look at all of the trackage around Philadelphia - almost all of it has overhead wire above it, and a lot of it runs double-stacks and autoracks every day, even though the wire installation predates those railcar designs by many dozens of years.


Oddly enough, that doesn't seem to be as much of a concern to the railways. The standards around 25kV overhead are extremely well defined. Hazardous materials are carried every single day under overhead wire in Europe by both diesel and electric locomotives.

No, the bigger concern for CN and CP is how the overhead - and more importantly, the ancillary structures likes poles and gantries - will affect their maintenance and clean-up operations. Will the cleanup of a derailment require additional downtime in order to restring the wire, in the event that it might interfere with the cranes and other equipment?

Dan

I did not know that they had Freight on the SEPTA lines.

 

[Bordercollie]

^ I believe he said it would partially come from existing housing-related programs he would cut (many of INFC’s housing funds ie Housing Accelerator Fund, Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund, etc.). So a direct connection to HFR at this point isn't being made.

Great so people who sold a house and could afford a house benefit but everyone else gets the short end of the stick.

 

[robmausser]

The idea of building a rail corridor from Montreal and Toronto which doesn’t share any ROWs with either CN or CPKC is rather delusional. We thankfully don’t have incompatible track gauges (like in Japan or Spain) which would force building dedicated into metropolitan centers…

Theres nothing delusional about coming into Toronto. Its possible to use one of the Metrolinx owned corridors, like the Stoufville line to come into Union.

The only issue is Montreal really.

 

[robmausser]

Railways can run double stacks on electrified lines. It just needs to be a design requirement.

Regardless of whats technically feasible, CP and CN have said no. They both have banned catenary in their corridors.

 

[robmausser]

The assumption HFR was 2/3 of the benefit with 1/3 of the cost, or something along those fractional lines. It sounds as though the bidders and the feds now think the math is different, and that the extra speed will sell enough extra tickets to make it worthwhile.

It will be interesting to see what the solutions are for getting in and out of Toronto and Montreal, which could make or break some of the speed assumptions, and how on earth they are going to make Peterborough to Perth fast.

This is exactly it. If HFR wasn't feasible, then HSR isn't, so that doesn't make sense.

It probably turned out that HFR would cost say $5 Billion, and HSR cost $40 Billion, and there was a much greater ROI for the latter.

This could be exactly for the reason you hinted at: without straightening the curves on the route through Peterborough to Perth, it probably slowed down the HFR proposal dramatically. Like to the point that it wasn't any faster than the existing trains on the CN line.

Straightening the curves turned out to cost so much, at that point you might as well pay a bit more and make the thing HSR.

It might very well be that through that section they just propose to run the whole line in an elevated guideway that passes over all the geology that caused the curvy route in the first place, and you get full grade separation over roads to boot.

Once you do that, you basically already have a formula for HSR.