News   Jul 16, 2024
 415     0 
News   Jul 16, 2024
 532     2 
News   Jul 15, 2024
 1.3K     3 

VIA Rail

I'm glad to know your fingers are crossed because no one from London or Windsor are crossing theirs. Right now to get to Toronto via VIA is like taking the slow boat to China and now all they have to look forward to is more slow boats. Seriously, 70km/hr from London to Toronto for a 2.5 hour trip is pretty blistering.

I'm a frequent user of VIA's London service (to Oakville) and it only takes 1h46m. I find it usually runs on time, and moves decently fast. It isn't much longer than 2h to Toronto, and much faster than driving. Also, there is a fair amount of variety of departure times from London.

I think that most people would rather have more frequency, slightly faster trains, and reasonable prices, than very fast trains and very high prices.
 
I'm a frequent user of VIA's London service (to Oakville) and it only takes 1h46m. I find it usually runs on time, and moves decently fast. It isn't much longer than 2h to Toronto, and much faster than driving. Also, there is a fair amount of variety of departure times from London.

I think that most people would rather have more frequency, slightly faster trains, and reasonable prices, than very fast trains and very high prices.

doesnt have to be... HSR from Taipei to Tainan (317km) starts at only $56 CAD. At 300km/h I would gladly pay an extra bill for HSR to arrive an hour before VIA
 
I get the other components. But can anyone explain why electrification costs are higher for the 300 kph scenario?

Just an informed guess. As speed rises, the physics and geometry of maintaining the electrical contact change. The degree of tilting, for example - what sounds like a small tilt can mean a large sideways displacement of the pantograph at speed. The changes in geometry may mean different components, different clearances, diffent tension on the catenary, different pole spacings, etc. And then there's the question of how many kw you have to supply to get to that higher speed.

- Paul
 
Just an informed guess. As speed rises, the physics and geometry of maintaining the electrical contact change. The degree of tilting, for example - what sounds like a small tilt can mean a large sideways displacement of the pantograph at speed. The changes in geometry may mean different components, different clearances, diffent tension on the catenary, different pole spacings, etc. And then there's the question of how many kw you have to supply to get to that higher speed.

- Paul

I get that. But it's quite a bit more. I was wondering if this forced more substations, more TPS, etc.
 
I get that. But it's quite a bit more. I was wondering if this forced more substations, more TPS, etc.

I don't know, and probably only Mr C knows what's behind those numbers. Somewhere I read that up to half of the cost of electrification can be in achieving the necessary clearances - modifying overpasses etc. With Plan A having a different route than Plan B, that might account for a difference even if the engineering is assumed to be pretty similar.

- Paul
 
I'm a frequent user of VIA's London service (to Oakville) and it only takes 1h46m. I find it usually runs on time, and moves decently fast. It isn't much longer than 2h to Toronto, and much faster than driving. Also, there is a fair amount of variety of departure times from London.

I think that most people would rather have more frequency, slightly faster trains, and reasonable prices, than very fast trains and very high prices.


I happen to agree. If demand or utility of ultra HSR is not there then it shouldn't be built.

The problem is that, as usual, is that the governments don't want to pay for any HSR and the more complicated and hence expensive the proposal, the easier it is to just do another study or endless environmental reports to delay the project until after the next election.

The solution to serving SWO is NOT electrification via Kitchener. The proper use of funds {and t would cost a LOT less and be much easier to build} is building the Brantford by-pass and taking the northern route from London along the old HWY#2 to by-pass Woodstock/Ingersol. By doing this, it would greatly limit any interference with CN/CP and a Union/London express with high speed diesel could do the trip in 75 minutes. That kind of time frame would make VIA a real alternative for Londoners and those further West to Windsor/Detroit.
 
The solution to serving SWO is NOT electrification via Kitchener. The proper use of funds {and t would cost a LOT less and be much easier to build} is building the Brantford by-pass and taking the northern route from London along the old HWY#2 to by-pass Woodstock/Ingersol. By doing this, it would greatly limit any interference with CN/CP and a Union/London express with high speed diesel could do the trip in 75 minutes. That kind of time frame would make VIA a real alternative for Londoners and those further West to Windsor/Detroit.

I would like to see a head-to-head comparison of upgrading the existing GEXR via Stratford versus the proposed bypass. The bypass is a cool idea, and it is through fairly flat farmland that is probably easy to build through and does not prevent a wide open full speed. GEXR has a couple of dicey bits where one might be restricted in speed - namely Baden, New Hamburg, and St Mary's - and adding the double track would be a lot of effort in a few spots.

The only down side to the new line proposal is, it bypasses several communities that currently have VIA service - Stratford, St Marys, Woodstock, Ingersoll.

Of course, all of this needs the Halton solution, but if done as a standalone package it might be a whole lot cheaper than the electrified super train. That modest investment might change a lot of minds about further incremental improvements.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
The solution to serving SWO is NOT electrification via Kitchener. The proper use of funds {and t would cost a LOT less and be much easier to build} is building the Brantford by-pass and taking the northern route from London along the old HWY#2 to by-pass Woodstock/Ingersol. By doing this, it would greatly limit any interference with CN/CP and a Union/London express with high speed diesel could do the trip in 75 minutes. That kind of time frame would make VIA a real alternative for Londoners and those further West to Windsor/Detroit.
I'm increasingly taking your recurring comments with the same long-debunked or unsubstantiated claims as compulsive trolling behaviour.

For anyone considering to restart this discussion we've already made multiple times and does not belong here anyways, a very quick debunking:

Incorrect claim 1: A Higher-Speed service (design speed: 200 km/h) on the existing Toronto-Aldershot-Ingersoll route (but with the Brantford bypass) would take 75 minutes and be substantially faster than any train taking the Northern route (via Kitchener).

Debunk: The travel time difference I calculated between the Northern Route (via Kitchener - "TKL") and Southern Route (via Brantford and Ingersoll - TBIL) is negligible (only 40 seconds at 200 km/h). Rerouting the trains via the Brantford Bypass and onto the CP route between Woodstock and London as suggested by you (Shown below as "THTL") appears to only increase that difference to 8'50" and to make you still exceed your 75 minute claim by 2'36" (and I'm afraid the acceleration capabilities I assumed in my calculations might be a bit ambitious for your "high speed diesel" traction).
urban-toronto-15-jpg.36467

Note: TKL=Toronto-Kitchener-London (i.e. current Northern Route), TBIL=Toronto-Brantford-Ingersoll-London (i.e. current Southern Route) and THTL=Toronto-Harrisburg-Thamesford-London (i.e. current Southern Route, but with Brantford Bypass and reroute via CP line between Woodstock and London, see Map here)
Source (and further reading): http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...son-airport-toronto.20558/page-49#post-947159

Incorrect claim 2: Such a route (Toronto-London via Brantford Bypass and the CP line beyond Woodstock) would minimise interference with freight trains (compared to Toronto-Kitchener-London).

Debunk: This claim is simply absurd. Even with the Brantford Bypass, the Southern Route would still operate via CN's or CP's busy and crucial Toronto-Chicago freight corridors for a total length of 104.9 km (Burlington-Lynden [CN], Paris-Woodstock [CN] and Woodstock-London [CP]), while on the Northern Route, that figure is only 19 km (less than one-fifth of the respective figure for your route) and might be reduced to zero in the medium-long term, thanks to the Missing Link. Again, I've made a table 3 years ago, which I still believe to make a clear argument:
urban-toronto-16-jpg.36461

Source: same as table above.

@all: Please don't continue this discussion here. There is already a thread which is clearly more suitable for this topic.

***Edit (2017-08-03): I've initially over-read the "routing along old Highway 2" part (i.e. choosing the CP rather than the CN route west of Woodstock). I've therefore removed all references to the Toronto-Harrisburg [i.e. Brantford Bypass]-Ingersoll-London (THIL) route as the tables I posted 3 years ago already covered the 3 scenarios in question: The Southern route (TBIL) currently used by VIA's Toronto-Windsor services, the existing Northern route (TKL) currently used by VIA's Toronto-Sarnia services and your THTL scenario.***
 
Last edited:
Been a week since the last post above, and the calm may about to be broken. There's something in the air....got to leave that for now, watch the press closely the next few days.

Just checking the press myself to see if I'd missed a big announcement, nothing yet, but this is further *complete consensus* from local government affected by the HFR proposal:
City council supports Via Rail expansion
By Elliot Ferguson, Kingston Whig-Standard
Wednesday, August 9, 2017 4:51:47 EDT PM

KINGSTON – City council threw its support behind a multi-billion dollar plan to build a dedicated passenger train line through southern Ontario and Quebec.

Councillors voted in favour of a motion to support VIA Rail’s high frequency rail proposal despite the fact that the new passenger service would not pass through the city.

VIA Rail’s proposed $5.25-billion high frequency rail line would connect Windsor, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City.

Mayor Bryan Paterson said he recently met with VIA Rail’s chief executive officer Yves Desjardins-Siciliano and came away from that meeting assured that train service to Kingston would improve under the new plan.

“I am convinced this is in Kingston’s best interests,” Paterson said.

Paterson said Kingston would become a “hub” on the existing rail line that carries passenger and freight trains and there would be improved service to the city, especially in the early morning and late afternoon.

The city’s motion called for the federal and Ontario governments to financially support the high-frequency rail project.

Last month, an almost identical resolution from the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus (EOWC) was endorsed by Frontenac County council.

In Frontenac County’s case, the proposed new rail line would pass through Central Frontenac Township. A map provided by the company shows the rail line passing through Sharbot Lake but a company spokesperson has said the line’s precise route, and where the stations will be, has not been formalized.

One of the options being looked at for passenger service from Toronto to Ottawa is through Smiths Falls using existing or discontinued railroad rights of way.

“Kingston will become a key regional hub,” Via Rail spokesperson Mariam Diaby wrote in an email to the Whig-Standard. “VIA Rail’s train schedule will be tailored to the needs of the communities along the existing Kingston-Toronto, Kingston-Ottawa and, Kingston-Montreal corridor.”

The new schedule is to include trains arriving and leaving in Kingston “first thing in the morning and at end of the work day,” Diaby wrote.

“In addition, it will allow for late evening trains that would allow people to go back and forth into the larger cities (Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal) for evening events.”

The high frequency rail plan is meant to allow Via to operate trains on a more frequent basis, solving what the company says is the biggest obstacle to travellers choosing the train.

A dedicated passenger train line would allow up to 15 departures per day from major centres, instead of the current six departures. [...]
http://www.thewhig.com/2017/08/09/city-council-supports-via-rail-expansion

Quite by intent, I didn't include the text as per Greg Gormick's take on events.

Edit to Add:
On second thoughts, I will quote Gormick, because the comments he makes, taken in the greater context of what we all know is the problem for greater service with the status-quo, are absurd:
[...]
“What we have is a classic situation where to get support they will promise you anything today,” Gormick said. “Delivery is a little bit different.”

While the company has promised the new dedicated passenger rail line would improved service along the existing CN line, Gormick said the company could already do that if it wanted.

“This is something they could do almost immediately,” Gormick said. “They could do that right now, they just need to re-arrange their schedule.

“They could re-arrange the service tomorrow. But if you want to sell that big project it’s probably best not to tell people you can do something to the existing service today.”

But improved service won’t mean much to Via if it can’t make it more affordable to travel by train, Gormick added. [...]
Really Greg?
Your presumptions alone are absurd, let alone the castles you build on them to pizz from:

"While the company has promised the new dedicated passenger rail line would improved service along the existing CN line".

*Indirectly* by *releasing* slots, not creating them. Kingston, for instance, will be better served not as a mid-way-point stop, but as a *hub* serving and being served from three directions. Since the overhead passenger mainline carriage is displaced, then the slots left can be used to better serve the locals. Just like is done in many, if not most, advanced nations. What a concept...

But I digress, Gormick's comments have gone off the deep siding in a number of instances lately...
 
Last edited:
Been a week since the last post above, and the calm may about to be broken. There's something in the air....got to leave that for now, watch the press closely the next few days.

I'm sorry what? Is that a hint that something is gonna happen/be announced soon? More info please!!
 
I'm sorry what? Is that a hint that something is gonna happen/be announced soon? More info please!!

Way too early for signification developments. The CIB isn't fully up and running yet. I'm not even sure, VIA has actually got back all the consultation they contracted out.

I'm happy to be proven wrong. But I think all we'll get at this stage are warmed over announcements or minor details released.

This project isn't going forward without the CIB and institutional investors.
 
There's two new articles up on Mayor Paterson's views, one just up an hour ago on Kingston Council unanimously approving a motion. (These aren't the impending story I mentioned prior)

City endorses Via Rail’s proposed high frequency train expansion
News Aug 11, 2017 06:36 by Bill Hutchins Kingston Heritage

https://www.kingstonregion.com/news...il-s-proposed-high-frequency-train-expansion/

Here's an interview with Paterson, a very eloquent and positive endorsement:
Mayor Bryan Paterson drops in to update changes coming to Via Rail and how they may impact Kingston.


Mayor Bryan Paterson joins Julie Brown on the news desk to update changes coming to Via Rail and how they may impact Kingston in the future. Kingston could become a rail hub with trains originating and terminating at the Kingston Via station.

http://globalnews.ca/video/3645692/...-to-via-rail-and-how-they-may-impact-kingston

Here's Paterson's official Mayoral page:
https://mayorpaterson.com/2017/07/27/proposed-via-rail-expansion-in-eastern-ontario/
cleardot.gif
 
"ICYMI: Town of Churchill hires two consultants to lobby feds over railway repairs http://ipoli.ca/IDyq30ejyhT #cdnpoli #mbpoli"

Most of the story is behind a paywall.

"The Town of Churchill has hired two consultants to lobby the federal government about “the immediate need to repair the rail line into Churchill” and “the necessity to secure funding” for that purpose — the latest development in an escalating situation that has pitted the federal government against the railway’s owner, Denver-based OmniTRAX.

Patricia Toner and Philip Cartwright of Global Public Affairs registered with the federal lobbying commissioner’s office on behalf of the northern Manitoba community on August 1, 2017 — two of 36 new registrations posted on the lobby registry between July 31 and August 4."
 
Senators demand Churchill rail line fix
Tory, Independents want Liberals to act
By: Dylan Robertson
Posted: 08/11/2017 9:00 PM | Comments:

Alex de Vries / The Canadian Press

Sen. Patricia Bovey says Churchill is Manitoba’s northern gateway.

OTTAWA — Manitoba senators are pushing the Liberal government to find a solution to Omnitrax’s refusal to repair the rail line to Churchill while it lobbies for federal cash.

"Churchill is really Manitoba’s northern gateway," said independent Sen. Patricia Bovey, who visited in late July. "My question is: is it a gateway now or is it a barrier to the North?"

The town lost its rail lifeline 11 weeks ago after heavy flooding washed out rail bridges north of Gillam.

Last month, Denver-based Omnitrax said it would cost $20 million to $60 million to repair the tracks. It said that’s "not economically viable."

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said the company is obligated to maintain service along the track, an assessment shared by experts in transportation law.

Yet Bovey said several ministers’ offices won’t give her clear answers on what they’re doing about it.

She said the rail line’s importance goes beyond the town of 900 — supplies go through the port north to Nunavut — while some argue the town is strategically located for military troops and research on climate change.

Bovey has heard from parents worried about feeding their children amid $21.29 blocks of cheese, and stranded seasonal workers who took their cars up north by train, as well as researchers whose colleagues can’t transport equipment.

"I can’t underline its importance to the nation enough," she said.

Manitoba Conservative Sen. Don Plett said he’s regularly phoning the town’s business owners. He plans to push Trudeau if the problem isn’t solved when the Senate returns from a break Sept. 18.

"Trudeau has an obligation to the people Churchill, and the tourism industry for the province of Manitoba," Plett said.

He said Ottawa should move beyond vague legal threats and help First Nations groups who want to take over the line.

"It’s an absolute crisis up there, that should not be happening in any part of the country," he said.

Independent Sen. Raymond Gagné said it’s "nonsense" to allow Churchill to become inaccessible.

"Everyone’s pointing fingers, and I think more than anything the different parties need to sit down together and find a solution," Gagné said.

On Friday, a week after Omnitrax said it received the full engineering report on the line, the company still had no timeline for when it would release an updated cost estimate.

The company has enlisted Maryscott Greenwood, a longtime lobbyist on Canada-U.S. issues, who communicated in June with an official in the Prime Minister’s Office, according to disclosures filed with the lobbying commissioner.

Greenwood, who could not be reached Friday, met with Winnipeg MP Dan Vandal and advisers to Winnipeg MP Jim Carr, the natural resources minister who handles Manitoba issues.

Her filings say she’s lobbied "for emergency relief in light of flooding in northern Manitoba" and for "the potential transfer of Hudson Bay Railway to a First Nations consortium or other entity if appropriate."

Meanwhile, the Town of Churchill has hired two lobbyists, but the town has not yet asked them to start meeting, because Trudeau phoned Mayor Mike Spence on July 30, and said he’s working on a solution.

"They’re just sitting tight now," Spence said. "I’m really pleased with the PMO being involved in this."

dylan.robertson@freepress.mb.ca
https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/senators-demand-churchill-rail-line-fix-439960803.html
 

Back
Top